A high-profile trial over alleged social media addiction starts Tuesday in California. Senior executives from major technology firms are expected to testify. The case could redefine legal accountability for digital platforms.
The plaintiff is a 19-year-old woman identified as KGM. She claims platform algorithms caused addiction and damaged her mental health. She says these designs encouraged compulsive use during her teenage years.
The defendants include Meta, owner of Instagram and Facebook, TikTok owner ByteDance, and YouTube parent Google. Snapchat reached a settlement with the plaintiff last week. The remaining companies now head to court.
The trial will take place at Los Angeles Superior Court. Legal observers call it the first in a wave of similar lawsuits. These cases may weaken a long-standing legal defence used by technology companies.
Algorithms and engagement tools under legal scrutiny
The companies argue the evidence does not prove responsibility for depression or eating disorders. They say no direct causal link exists between their products and the alleged harms.
The decision to proceed to trial reflects a broader legal shift. Courts increasingly examine claims that digital products foster addictive behaviour. Pressure on the technology sector continues to grow.
For decades, companies relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Congress passed the law in 1996 to shield platforms from liability over user content.
This lawsuit focuses on different questions. It targets algorithms, notifications, and engagement features. These design choices shape how users interact with social media apps.
KGM’s lawyer, Matthew Bergman, described the trial as historic. He said a jury will directly assess social media company conduct.
He said many young people worldwide suffer similar harm. He accused companies of valuing profits over children’s wellbeing.
Rising legal risks for technology firms
Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, warned the stakes are enormous. He said court losses could threaten the companies’ long-term survival.
He also highlighted challenges for plaintiffs. Courts rarely attribute psychological harm directly to content publishers.
Still, he said these lawsuits opened new legal ground. Existing laws never anticipated claims focused on digital product design.
Internal records and executive testimony
Jurors will hear extensive testimony during the trial. They will also review internal company documents.
Mary Graw Leary, a law professor at Catholic University of America, expects significant disclosures. She said companies may reveal information long hidden from public view.
Meta previously said it introduced dozens of safety tools for teenagers. Some researchers question whether those measures work effectively.
The companies plan to argue third-party users caused the alleged harm. They deny their designs directly injured young users.
Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify early. His appearance ranks among the most anticipated moments.
In 2024, Zuckerberg told US senators scientific studies showed no proven causal link. He said research failed to connect social media with worse youth mental health.
During that hearing, he apologised to victims and their families. Lawmakers pressed him during emotional exchanges.
Global pressure on social media companies intensifies
Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at George Washington University, questioned executive testimony strategies. She said technology leaders often struggle under intense pressure.
She added companies strongly hoped to avoid placing top executives on the stand. Public testimony carries serious reputational risks.
The trial comes as global scrutiny continues to rise. Families, school districts, and prosecutors increasingly challenge social media practices.
Last year, dozens of US states sued Meta. They accused the company of misleading the public about platform risks.
Australia has banned social media use for children under 16. The UK signalled in January it may adopt similar rules.
Franks said society has reached a tipping point. She argued governments no longer treat the technology industry with automatic deference.
