Listen to the article
A landmark trial opened Monday in Los Angeles as lawyers representing children harmed by social media platforms delivered passionate arguments comparing Instagram and YouTube to casinos and addictive drugs. The case could potentially reshape how tech giants manage child safety on their platforms.
Attorney Mark Lanier, representing the plaintiffs, told jurors that Meta and Google have “engineered addiction in children’s brains” through deliberate design choices that keep young users engaged for longer periods. The trial centers on a 20-year-old plaintiff identified only as “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies proceed.
“This case is as easy as ABC — which stands for ‘addicting the brains of children,'” Lanier told the court, characterizing the defendants as “two of the richest corporations in history” that knowingly created addictive platforms.
The lawsuit originally named TikTok and Snap as defendants, but both companies reached undisclosed settlements before the trial began. Meta and Google’s YouTube now face claims that their platforms use sophisticated design techniques that deliberately foster addiction among young users.
Lanier presented internal documents from both companies, including Meta’s “Project Myst” study, which surveyed 1,000 teens and their parents. According to Lanier, the study revealed that Meta knew children who experienced trauma and stress were particularly vulnerable to addiction, and that parental controls made minimal impact on usage patterns.
Perhaps most damaging were internal communications Lanier highlighted, including Google documents comparing some products to casinos, and Meta employee messages describing Instagram as “like a drug” and themselves as “basically pushers.”
The plaintiff, KGM, began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, according to her attorney. Before finishing elementary school, she had posted 284 videos on YouTube. She made a brief appearance during Monday’s proceedings and will testify later in the trial.
Meta attorney Paul Schmidt offered a sharply different perspective, arguing that the core question is whether social media platforms were a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles. Schmidt detailed the plaintiff’s troubled childhood, citing health records that documented emotional abuse, body image issues, and bullying.
Schmidt played a video deposition from one of KGM’s mental health providers, who stated that social media was “not the through-line of what I recall being her main issues,” suggesting her struggles stemmed primarily from interpersonal conflicts and relationships. He emphasized that while many mental health professionals believe social media addiction can exist, KGM’s own providers had never diagnosed her with it, despite believing such addiction is possible.
“This case is not about whether social media is a good thing or whether teens spend too much time on their phones,” Schmidt told jurors. “It’s about whether social media was a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles.”
YouTube’s legal team will present their opening statement on Tuesday.
The trial, expected to last six to eight weeks, could have profound implications for how social media companies handle children using their platforms. High-profile executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify. Legal experts have drawn parallels to the Big Tobacco litigation of the 1990s that resulted in a massive 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.
This case is part of a broader legal reckoning for social media companies. A separate trial against Meta also began Monday in New Mexico, where the company is accused of failing to protect young users from sexual exploitation following an undercover investigation. Another federal trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first representing school districts that have sued social media platforms over alleged harms to children.
Additionally, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming its platforms deliberately addict children and contribute to the youth mental health crisis. TikTok faces similar legal challenges in over a dozen states.
The outcome of these cases could fundamentally alter how social media companies design their platforms, implement safety features, and engage with younger users in the future.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
As someone invested in the mining and energy sectors, I’ll be closely following this trial. The platforms’ role in influencing young audiences is a complex issue that could have far-reaching implications, both positive and negative.
Agreed, the outcome of this case could impact how social media platforms design their products and services, which in turn could affect a wide range of industries and stakeholders.
I’m skeptical of the claim that social media ‘engineers addiction’ – while the platforms are designed to be engaging, there’s a big difference between that and true addiction. Still, the safety and wellbeing of children should be the top priority.
Valid point. The analogy to casinos and drugs does seem like an exaggeration. But the core issue of protecting minors is an important one that deserves a thoughtful, nuanced approach.
From a factual standpoint, it will be interesting to see the evidence presented on the specific design choices and their impacts. Sensationalist rhetoric aside, this case could set important legal precedents around platform responsibility.
Exactly. The technical details and expert testimony will be crucial in determining whether the plaintiffs can prove their case. A reasoned, evidence-based approach will be key.
The comparison to casinos and drugs does seem like an oversimplification, but the plaintiffs do raise valid concerns about the potential harms of social media for minors. Hopefully the trial will lead to a more nuanced understanding of these complex issues.
Interesting case – it’ll be important to see how the courts balance the benefits of social media against the potential harms, especially for young users. Curious to hear more about the technical evidence the plaintiffs plan to present.
Agreed, the design choices that platforms make can have significant impacts, both positive and negative. Hopefully this case sheds more light on those dynamics.
As an investor in the mining and energy sectors, I’ll be watching this trial closely. The potential implications for how social media platforms are designed and regulated could have ripple effects across many industries.
This case highlights the tricky balance between innovation, user engagement, and social responsibility. While the platforms may not have ‘engineered addiction,’ they do have a duty of care, especially when it comes to young and vulnerable users.
I appreciate the plaintiffs’ passion in advocating for child safety, but the rhetoric of ‘addicting the brains of children’ does seem hyperbolic. Still, the core concerns around minors’ wellbeing on social media deserve serious consideration.