Additional Coverage:
Social Media Giants Face Landmark Trials Over Child Harm Allegations
LOS ANGELES – The world’s leading social media platforms are now confronting a wave of unprecedented trials, with the first of these landmark lawsuits commencing this week in Los Angeles. These cases aim to determine the extent of their responsibility for allegedly harming children through addictive product designs.
Jury selection began Tuesday for the initial lawsuit, which will proceed in both state and federal courts. Over 1,600 plaintiffs, including more than 350 families and 250 school districts, have brought accusations against the parent companies of Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. They contend that these platforms were deliberately engineered to be addictive, causing significant damage to the mental health of young users.
According to the class action master complaint, the plaintiffs assert that Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap “have rewired how our kids think, feel, and behave.”
Ahead of the trial’s start, TikTok and Snap reached settlements with the plaintiff in the first California state case. However, both companies remain defendants in numerous similar lawsuits expected to go to trial this year.
Mark Lanier, lead trial lawyer for the plaintiff in the inaugural case, expressed openness to settlements with Meta and Google. Still, his ultimate objective for the trial is to “produce transparency and accountability.”
“Transparency in that we would like for all of the records that are confidential [to] become public so that the public can see that these companies have been orchestrating an addiction crisis in our country and, actually, the world,” Lanier told reporters outside the courtroom on Tuesday. “We also want accountability. We want these companies to be held accountable for the damage that they’ve done to individual people.”
The trials are kicking off with the case of a 20-year-old woman, identified in court as K.G.M., who was a minor at the time of the incidents outlined in her lawsuit. Lanier believes his client’s case will serve as a “bellwether” for the hundreds of similar cases still pending in state court.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is anticipated to testify in February, according to Meta’s legal team, with Instagram head Adam Mosseri also potentially taking the stand. Snap CEO Evan Spiegel was also expected to testify but will no longer do so following the settlement.
A jury verdict in favor of the first plaintiff could result in damages to be determined by the jury and potentially force the social media companies to alter their platform designs. The outcome could also influence whether the tech giants choose to fight or settle the upcoming cases.
The terms of TikTok’s and Snap’s settlements with K.G.M. have not been disclosed. TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“The Parties are pleased to have been able to resolve this matter in an amicable manner,” a Snap spokesperson stated via email.
On Sunday, the Tech Oversight Project, a nonprofit tech watchdog, published a report featuring unsealed court documents, including internal emails, messages, and slide decks, that indicate attempts by Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok to enhance the appeal of their platforms to young people.
“This settlement should come as no surprise because that damning evidence is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, in a statement. “This was only the first case – there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products.”
Matt Bergman, founding director of the Social Media Victims Law Center, which represents approximately 750 plaintiffs in the California state proceeding and about 500 in the federal proceeding, expressed eagerness to hear CEOs testify about “why their profits were more important than our kids’ lives.”
Bergman noted that nearly three years ago, his group filed the country’s first case involving a child alleging harm by social media companies. At the time, they were informed that such cases “could never progress to trial because of Section 230,” a 1996 update to the Communications Act of 1934 that shields internet companies from liability for user-posted content.
“Due to the incredible dedication of these families and the hard work of many lawyers and judges, we are now able to go to trial despite Section 230,” Bergman stated. “And companies, for the first time, are going to be held accountable for the clear and present danger their platforms have inflicted on young people.”
In an emailed statement, Meta, the owner of Instagram and Facebook, highlighted its commitment to safety updates, including the introduction of Teen Accounts and parental control tools. A spokesperson wrote that the company is “proud of the progress we’ve made, and we’re always working to do better.”
“We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people,” the spokesperson added. “For over a decade, we’ve listened to parents, worked with experts and law enforcement, and conducted in-depth research to understand the issues that matter most.”
Google similarly refuted the lawsuits’ claims regarding YouTube.
“Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work. In collaboration with youth, mental health and parenting experts, we built services and policies to provide young people with age-appropriate experiences, and parents with robust controls,” Google spokesperson José Castañeda wrote in an email. “The allegations in these complaints are simply not true.”
These jury trials emerge two years after the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned top executives from Meta, TikTok, X, Snap, and Discord about alleged shortcomings concerning the safety of young people on their platforms.
The Tech Oversight Project has characterized these cases as “the most significant social media accountability litigation to date.”