Listen to the article
Jurors Hear Closing Arguments in Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial
LOS ANGELES — After a month of testimony from addiction experts, therapists, platform engineers, and executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, a 12-member jury is now considering closing arguments in a case that could reshape the legal landscape for social media companies nationwide.
The trial, taking place at the Spring Street Courthouse in Los Angeles, centers on a 20-year-old plaintiff identified as “KGM” or “Kaley,” who alleges that early social media use addicted her to the technology and worsened her depression and suicidal thoughts. Meta and Google-owned YouTube are the remaining defendants after TikTok and Snap reached settlements before the trial began.
The case holds particular significance as one of three bellwether trials that could influence the outcome of thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies across the country. The verdict may establish precedent for how courts view platform responsibility toward young users.
Mark Lanier, Kaley’s attorney, opened his closing statement with a powerful metaphor, displaying an image of gazelles surrounded by a lion. “The lions never go after the strongest or boldest gazelles,” he told jurors, “but rather target the ones they think are weakest. I think that’s what we got in this case.”
During his presentation, Lanier highlighted numerous internal documents from Meta and YouTube that he claims demonstrate the companies’ awareness of their platforms’ potentially addictive nature. “I don’t naysay the opportunity to make money, but when you’re making money off of kids, you have to do it responsibly,” he argued.
Both sides acknowledge Kaley’s difficult home life, but present contrasting interpretations. Her legal team contends she was targeted as a vulnerable user, while the defense argues she used their platforms as a coping mechanism for pre-existing mental health issues.
Meta has maintained throughout the trial that Kaley’s struggles predated her social media use. A company spokesperson stated Thursday that the jury’s sole task is to “decide if those struggles would have existed without Instagram. Not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause.”
Lanier countered by suggesting Kaley wouldn’t have mentioned her persistent social media use to therapists for fear of losing phone privileges. He reminded jurors of Kaley’s February testimony that she endured cyberbullying on these platforms because disconnecting completely was even more difficult for her.
Meta representatives emphasized their belief that youth mental health challenges cannot be effectively addressed through litigation, suggesting broader solutions are needed beyond the courtroom.
YouTube’s defense has taken a different approach, consistently arguing that it should not be classified as a social media platform and that its features are not inherently addictive. The company has repeatedly drawn comparisons between YouTube and television, stressing that it lacks the social validation mechanisms found on Instagram and similar platforms.
To help jurors visualize key concepts, Lanier has employed visual aids throughout the trial. On Thursday, he displayed a cupcake to illustrate the legal standard of “substantial factor” in causing harm, explaining that even a small amount of baking soda is crucial to the baking process.
Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl instructed jurors that since this is a civil case, only nine of the twelve need to agree on each count. The platforms will be evaluated independently, as if they were separate lawsuits. If the jury finds either or both companies liable, they will determine appropriate damages.
In his closing argument about potential compensation, Lanier posed a poignant question for jurors to consider: “What is a lost childhood worth?”
The verdict in this case could establish important precedent for the technology industry, potentially forcing social media companies to reconsider how they design products for and market to younger users. It also comes amid growing global concern about social media’s impact on youth mental health, with several states considering or implementing legislation to protect minor users online.
As deliberations begin, the tech industry and child safety advocates alike await a decision that could significantly alter the relationship between social media platforms and their youngest users.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
I’m glad to see this issue being taken to court. Social media’s impact on mental health, particularly among young people, is a serious concern that needs to be addressed. Hopefully this trial can shed some light on potential solutions.
This is a fascinating case that could have far-reaching implications for social media platforms and their responsibility towards young users. I’m curious to see how the jury will weigh the evidence and arguments on both sides.
I agree, the outcome of this trial could set an important precedent. It will be interesting to see how the courts ultimately rule on platform liability in cases of alleged social media addiction.
The use of a powerful metaphor by the plaintiff’s attorney is a savvy tactic to sway the jury. It will be interesting to see how the defense responds and whether they can counter that emotive framing with a more technical legal argument.
Good point. The defense will need to carefully balance their legal reasoning with an acknowledgment of the very real human impacts at the heart of this case.
While the tech companies will likely argue that users bear responsibility for their own social media use, the plaintiff’s team seems to be making a strong case for platform liability. This trial will test the boundaries of that argument.
The metaphor of the gazelles and the lion is a powerful one. It highlights the inherent power imbalance between these tech giants and their young, vulnerable users. This trial will test where the boundaries of that responsibility lie.
Well said. This case goes to the heart of the duty of care these platforms owe to their users, especially minors. The jury has a weighty decision to make.
This trial represents a high-stakes clash between individual rights and corporate interests. Whichever way the jury rules, the decision will have significant ramifications for the tech industry and its users.
This trial is a significant milestone in the ongoing debate around social media addiction and its consequences. I’m keen to see how the legal arguments play out and whether the jury will find in favor of the plaintiff.
Absolutely. The outcome of this case could set an important precedent that other courts may look to when adjudicating similar lawsuits against tech giants. The stakes are high.