In Los Angeles, a pivotal trial began Monday focusing on claims that social media platforms Instagram and YouTube have deliberately engineered features that foster addictive behaviors in children. Representing Instagram's parent company, Meta, and Google's YouTube, the case examines allegations that these corporations knowingly developed digital products designed to captivate young users excessively, causing significant harm to their mental health.
During the opening statements, lawyer Mark Lanier, advocating for the plaintiffs, drew vivid comparisons between these platforms and industries known for their addictive qualities, including casinos and narcotics. Lanier described Meta and Google as some of the wealthiest companies worldwide, accusing them of crafting strategies that “addict the brains of children.”
Lanier presented an array of internal communications, emails, and empirical research conducted by both Meta and Google that collectively suggest an awareness of the platforms’ impact on vulnerable youth populations. Particularly emphasized was a study conducted by Meta, referred to as “Project Myst,” which surveyed approximately 1,000 teenagers and their parents. This research highlighted two significant findings: firstly, children subjected to adverse life events such as trauma or stress were especially susceptible to platform addiction; secondly, parental controls proved insufficient in mitigating these addictive effects.
Further evidence included internal Google documents likening certain product functionalities to casino mechanics and exchanges among Meta employees characterizing Instagram as being “like a drug,” with the company acting as “pushers,” implicitly acknowledging the intentional hook through platform design.
The trial centers around a young woman, identified by the initials “KGM,” who began using YouTube at six years old and Instagram by the age of nine. Throughout her childhood, she uploaded hundreds of videos, reflecting deep engagement with these platforms. The outcomes from her case, along with two other bellwether plaintiffs, could determine the trajectory of over a thousand similar lawsuits filed against social media companies.
Lanier detailed KGM’s early personality before social media exposure, implying that her subsequent mental health decline corresponds to her increasing usage and addiction to these sites. Lanier anticipated the defense would seek to assign blame to KGM and her family for falling into what he described as a trap engineered by these corporations during her minority, underscoring the alleged detrimental influence on her psychological well-being.
Despite public assurances by Meta and YouTube that child protection is a priority, the plaintiff’s counsel revealed internal documents that depict children as explicit target demographics for these platforms. Lanier drew historical parallels with tobacco companies, whose internal knowledge of harm contrasted starkly with their public messaging. He referenced concerns among Meta staff about inaction towards potential harms and highlighted how features such as “like” buttons were deliberately designed to satisfy teenagers' imperative for social validation.
In response, Meta’s legal representative Paul Schmidt offered a counter-narrative emphasizing complexity around causation in KGM’s mental health issues. Schmidt referenced KGM’s medical records that detail numerous personal difficulties, including emotional abuse, body image challenges, and bullying, which he argued played a more central role than social media use. He presented testimony from Dr. Thomas Suberman, a mental health provider to KGM, who stated that social media was not the primary factor in the patient's psychological struggles.
Schmidt acknowledged professional disagreement regarding social media addiction but noted that three of KGM’s treating experts, who recognize the condition, had neither diagnosed nor treated her for social media addiction. He further insisted the trial hinges specifically on whether Meta and YouTube materially contributed to KGM’s mental health challenges, not on subjective evaluations of the companies or societal views on social media use.
This trial is among many emerging legal efforts this year aimed at holding social media platforms accountable for their impact on youth mental health. The case is expected to last six to eight weeks with anticipated testimony from top executives, including Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Observers have drawn analogies to historic litigation against tobacco companies that culminated in substantial regulatory and financial settlements.
Simultaneously, related cases have arisen nationally, including in New Mexico where Meta faces allegations of insufficiently protecting young users from sexual exploitation. Prosecutors, led by Attorney General Raúl Torrez, initiated a suit in 2023 against Meta and Zuckerberg, although the latter was later removed from the case. In Oakland, California, federal bellwether trials representing school districts are set to begin, seeking redress for educational institutions impacted by youth social media use.
Additionally, over 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta. These suits assert that platforms such as Instagram and Facebook purposely deploy features that foster addiction among children, exacerbating youth mental health crises. Likewise, TikTok confronts similar litigation across multiple states.