A high-profile trial over alleged social media addiction opens Tuesday in California. Senior executives from major technology companies are expected to testify. The outcome could redefine legal responsibility for digital platforms.
The plaintiff is a 19-year-old woman identified as KGM. She claims platform algorithms caused addiction and harmed her mental health. She says design choices encouraged compulsive use during her teenage years.
The defendants include Meta, owner of Instagram and Facebook, TikTok owner ByteDance, and YouTube parent Google. Snapchat settled with the plaintiff last week. The remaining companies will defend themselves in court.
The case will move forward at Los Angeles Superior Court. Legal observers see it as the first in a broader wave of lawsuits. These cases could weaken a long-standing legal defence used by technology firms.
Courts turn attention to addictive design features
The companies argue the evidence does not prove responsibility for depression or eating disorders. They deny any direct connection between their products and the alleged harms.
The decision to proceed to trial reflects a wider legal shift. Courts increasingly examine claims that digital products encourage addictive behaviour. Scrutiny of the technology sector continues to grow.
For years, companies relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Congress passed the law in 1996 to protect platforms from liability over user content.
This lawsuit challenges a different issue. It focuses on algorithms, notifications, and engagement tools. These features influence how users interact with social media platforms.
KGM’s lawyer, Matthew Bergman, called the case a milestone. He said a jury will directly assess social media company conduct. He added many young people worldwide suffer similar harm.
Legal exposure grows for technology companies
Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, warned the risks are substantial. He said losses in court could threaten the companies’ future.
He also pointed to difficulties for plaintiffs. Courts rarely attribute psychological harm directly to content publishers. Still, he said the lawsuits opened new legal ground.
Executives and internal records under the spotlight
Jurors will hear extensive testimony during the trial. They will also review internal company documents and records.
Mary Graw Leary, a law professor at Catholic University of America, expects major disclosures. She said companies may reveal information long kept from public view.
Meta previously said it introduced dozens of safety tools for teenagers. Some researchers question the effectiveness of those measures.
The companies plan to argue third-party users caused any alleged harm. They deny their designs directly injured young people.
Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify early. His appearance ranks among the most closely watched 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. He later apologised to victims and their families.
Global pressure on social media firms continues to rise
Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at George Washington University, questioned executive testimony strategies. She said technology leaders often struggle under intense questioning.
She added companies hoped to avoid placing top executives on the stand. Public testimony carries serious reputational risks.
The trial comes as global scrutiny intensifies. 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 follow. Franks said governments no longer grant the technology industry automatic deference.
