A landmark trial unfolding in a California courtroom is placing some of the world’s most powerful tech companies under an intense legal spotlight. A Los Angeles jury has been told that Meta and Google-owned YouTube deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive for children, marking one of the most significant legal challenges the social media industry has ever faced.
At the heart of the case is a lawsuit alleging that these platforms knowingly pushed highly engaging, habit-forming features onto young users, with devastating consequences for mental health. The trial could set a legal precedent on whether social media companies can be held accountable for intentionally creating addictive experiences for children.
In opening statements, plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier accused Meta and YouTube of what he called “addiction by design.” Addressing the jury, he said the case was about two of the richest corporations in history allegedly shaping products to hook children’s developing brains. To drive his point home, Lanier used children’s toy blocks to explain his argument: A for addicting, B for brains, and C for children.
“They don’t just build apps, they build traps,” Lanier told jurors, arguing that the platforms were engineered to keep young users engaged for as long as possible, regardless of the risks.
The proceedings are expected to feature testimony from high-profile executives, including Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri. Meta’s portfolio includes Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, platforms used by billions worldwide.
Meta’s legal team strongly rejected the claims. Attorney Paul Schmidt told the jury that the evidence would show the young woman at the center of the case faced challenges unrelated to Instagram, including family issues and real-world bullying. He argued that social media was not the root cause of her struggles and noted that medical records do not mention an Instagram addiction.
The case focuses on a 20-year-old woman, identified in court as Kaley G.M., who claims she suffered severe mental harm after becoming addicted to social media as a child. Legal experts are closely watching the trial, as it is being treated as a bellwether case. Its outcome could influence hundreds of similar lawsuits across the United States and help determine potential compensation levels for future plaintiffs.
Social media companies are facing mounting legal pressure nationwide. Hundreds of lawsuits accuse platforms of contributing to depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalisation, and other serious mental health issues among young users. Lawyers representing families say their approach mirrors the strategies used decades ago against the tobacco industry, which was accused of knowingly selling harmful products.
Lanier told jurors that Kaley began watching YouTube at just six years old, arguing that parents were never warned that the goal was to drive viewer addiction or that even toddlers were being targeted despite serious risks.
“This is the first time a social media company has had to face a jury over harm to children,” said Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center, whose organisation is involved in more than 1,000 similar cases.
Tech companies, meanwhile, argue they are protected by Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liability for user-generated content. However, this case challenges that protection by focusing not on user posts, but on the business models and algorithms designed to maximise engagement.
Plaintiffs plan to call expert witnesses who will testify that children’s brains are not fully developed to withstand the influence of powerful recommendation algorithms. YouTube has denied the allegations, calling them untrue, while Meta said it has introduced new safeguards for young users and continues to work on improving safety.
Snapchat and TikTok were also named in the lawsuit but reached undisclosed settlement agreements before the trial began. Meanwhile, additional lawsuits against social media companies are moving through courts across the US, including a separate case in New Mexico accusing Meta of prioritising profit over young users’ wellbeing.
As the trial continues, its impact could stretch far beyond one courtroom. For parents, children, and families affected by social media harms, this case is more than a legal battle. It is a moment of reckoning that asks a deeply human question: when technology shapes childhood itself, who is responsible for protecting young minds?
