Additional Coverage:
Social Media Giants Face Landmark Trial Over “Addictive” Designs and Youth Mental Health
Los Angeles, CA – A groundbreaking trial is set to commence in a Los Angeles courtroom on Tuesday, marking the first time social media companies will face a jury over allegations that their platforms are intentionally designed to be addictive and detrimental to children’s mental health. This pivotal case could send shockwaves through the tech industry, potentially reshaping how young people interact with social media.
The central question for the jury will be whether tech giants deliberately engineered features to ensnare young users, thereby contributing to a growing youth mental health crisis. The outcome carries significant implications for platform design and accountability.
This California state court case is the vanguard of numerous lawsuits slated for trial this year, brought by over 1,000 individual plaintiffs, hundreds of school districts, and dozens of state attorneys general. Legal experts are drawing parallels to the monumental legal battle against Big Tobacco in the 1990s, which centered on accusations that cigarette manufacturers concealed known health risks.
The lawsuits specifically target Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok, alleging that features like infinite scroll, auto-play videos, incessant notifications, and recommendation algorithms are crafted to make their apps nearly impossible for children to disengage from. These designs, the plaintiffs claim, have led to severe mental health issues, including depression, eating disorders, self-harm, and in some tragic instances, suicide. While Snapchat is also named in broader litigation, it has settled with the plaintiff in this specific trial.
Plaintiffs are seeking not only monetary damages but also fundamental changes to the design principles of these social media applications.
The Los Angeles trial promises an unprecedented look behind the curtain of some of the world’s most popular and powerful social media platforms. Jurors will examine thousands of pages of internal documents, including company research on children, hear from expert witnesses, and listen to the testimony of the teenage plaintiff, identified as K.G.M. She asserts that her excessive social media use directly caused her mental health struggles.
Adding to the high stakes, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are expected to testify during the trial, which is anticipated to last several weeks.
“The public is going to know for the first time what social media companies have done to prioritize their profits over the safety of our kids,” stated Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center, who represents K.G.M. and other plaintiffs.
Conversely, the tech companies maintain there is no clinical diagnosis of social media addiction and no proven direct link between social media use and mental health problems. They highlight the implementation of various safety features for young users in recent years, such as parental controls, restrictions on who can contact teen accounts, and time limits.
Furthermore, they invoke the First Amendment, arguing that their content decisions, like individual speech, are protected from government censorship – a stance affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Both Meta and Google, YouTube’s parent company, have issued statements dismissing the allegations as unfounded.
Meta stated, “These lawsuits misportray our company and the work we do every day to provide young people with safe, valuable experiences online. Despite the snippets of conversations or cherry-picked quotes that plaintiffs’ counsel may use to paint an intentionally misleading picture of the company, we’re proud of the progress we’ve made, we stand by our record of putting teen safety first, and we’ll keep making improvements.”
Google spokesperson José Castañeda echoed this sentiment, asserting, “The allegations in these complaints are simply not true.” He emphasized YouTube’s collaboration with experts to deliver “age-appropriate experiences” and “robust” parental controls. YouTube also intends to differentiate its video platform from apps like Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok in court.
TikTok declined to comment on the matter.
Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law specializing in internet law, expressed skepticism regarding the plaintiffs’ argument for holding companies liable for their design features.
“Essentially what the plaintiffs are trying to do is argue that social media is the virtual equivalent to a soda bottle, like a Coca-Cola bottle, that explodes and sends shards of glass to anyone in the nearby area,” Goldman remarked. “And if that doesn’t make any sense to you, it doesn’t make any sense to me either. The entire premise of treating publications as products is itself architecturally flawed.”
“A Compulsion to Engage”
These cases are proceeding on parallel tracks in both state and federal courts, with a select few “bellwether” cases going to trial first. The outcomes of these initial trials could significantly influence subsequent cases and potentially pave the way for widespread settlement negotiations.
Jury selection for the first bellwether case begins Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The plaintiff, K.G.M., now 19, alleges that her use of Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok led to depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia.
According to the complaint, K.G.M. began using social media at age 10, despite her mother’s attempts to block access. She “developed a compulsion to engage with those products nonstop” due to their “addictive design” and “constant notifications.”
“The more K.G.M. accessed Defendants’ products, the worse her mental health became,” the complaint states.
Bergman told reporters last week, “She is going to be able to explain in a very real sense what social media did to her over the course of her life and how, in so many ways, it robbed her of her childhood and her adolescence. She is very typical of so many children in the United States, the harms that they’ve sustained and the way their lives have been altered by the deliberate design decisions of the social media companies.”
Last week, Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, reached a settlement with K.G.M., removing it from this initial trial. Details of the settlement were not disclosed. However, Snap remains a defendant in other consolidated state and federal proceedings.
“The Parties are pleased to have been able to resolve this matter in an amicable manner,” Snap stated. The company has previously contested the lawsuit’s allegations, with its lawyers telling Bloomberg News in November that “Snapchat was designed differently from traditional social media; it opens to the camera, allowing Snapchatters to connect with family and friends in an environment that prioritizes their safety and privacy.”
“The Internet is on Trial”
Bringing these claims to trial has been an arduous journey for the plaintiffs, largely due to the formidable legal shield provided to online platforms by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
The plaintiffs aim to circumvent this immunity by focusing their arguments on features they contend are designed to keep children perpetually engaged with social media apps, rather than on specific user-generated content.
“We are not talking about third-party content. We are talking about the reckless design of these platforms that are designed not to show kids what they want to see, but what they can’t look away from,” Bergman emphasized.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who presides over the consolidated state cases, including K.G.M.’s, has dismissed some plaintiff claims that pertained to third-party content, deeming them covered by Section 230. However, she ruled that the question of whether features like infinite scrolling contribute to user harm is a matter for a jury to decide.
Professor Goldman warned that if the plaintiffs prevail, the potential damages pose “an existential threat” to social media companies and the broader internet landscape. This threat extends beyond financial repercussions to potential mandates for fundamental changes in how tech products operate.
“The internet is on trial in these cases,” Goldman concluded. “If the plaintiffs win, the internet will almost certainly look different than it does today. And probably it will be a far less conversational one that we have today.”