For the first time in the United States, families, teenagers and school districts are forcing some of the world’s largest technology companies to defend themselves before a jury over allegations that social media platforms were deliberately engineered to addict children.
The trials, beginning this week in a Los Angeles superior court, bring together roughly 1,600 plaintiffs, including more than 350 families and around 250 school districts, who argue that products run by Meta, TikTok, Snap and YouTube have contributed to a surge in mental health crises among young users.
According to reporting by The Guardian, the cases mark the first coordinated effort of this scale to challenge social media companies in open court over claims that their design choices fuel addiction, depression, eating disorders and self-harm among minors.
At the center of the opening trial is a 19-year-old plaintiff, identified in court documents as KGM, who alleges she developed serious mental health problems after becoming heavily reliant on social media apps during childhood. Her case is expected to run for six to eight weeks and will act as a “bellwether”, a test case intended to reveal how juries may respond to the broader set of lawsuits.
Legal experts say the outcome could shape the future of the industry.
“This is something we have never seen before,” said Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center, which represents several plaintiffs. Speaking to reporters, Bergman said forcing a social media company to defend its product design before a jury is “unprecedented”.
The Los Angeles proceedings are part of a larger judicial council coordination proceeding, a state-level mechanism that groups similar lawsuits. About 22 bellwether trials are expected before the court turns to thousands of remaining claims.
If the plaintiffs succeed, they are not only seeking financial damages but also court-mandated changes to how platforms are built, including new safety standards that could alter features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos and algorithm-driven recommendations.
As first reported by The Guardian, executives from major platforms, including Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel and Instagram head Adam Mosseri, are expected to be called as witnesses, alongside experts on online harm.
The companies have largely pushed back. Meta and Snap did not respond to requests for comment, while TikTok declined to comment. YouTube rejected the allegations outright, calling them false and stating that creating safer, age-appropriate experiences for young users has been central to its work.
The case has already drawn attention after Snap reached a confidential settlement with KGM shortly before the trial began, while denying any wrongdoing. The financial terms were not disclosed, and Snap remains a defendant in other cases. Meta, TikTok and YouTube have not settled.
Advocacy groups involved in the litigation suggest the settlement could signal what lies ahead. Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, told The Guardian that companies do not settle unless they want to keep damaging information out of public view.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers are expected to rely on a strategy reminiscent of the lawsuits against tobacco companies in the 1990s, arguing that companies publicly denied harm while privately acknowledging the addictive nature of their products.
According to attorneys involved in the case, internal company documents are expected to be unsealed during the trial. Some reportedly include employees describing platforms as addictive, with features designed to maximise time spent online. One internal exchange, cited in court filings, allegedly compares social media apps to drugs.
Technology firms have long argued that users are responsible for how they engage with platforms and that companies are shielded from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being sued over user-generated content.
However, in a key ruling last November, the judge overseeing the case determined that jurors must examine not just content but also the design of the platforms themselves, a decision that could weaken a central defence used by tech companies for decades.
“There is a generation of children paying the price,” Bergman said, arguing that the harms were not accidental but the result of deliberate product choices.
A separate federal case, involving more than 235 plaintiffs and nearly three dozen state attorneys general, is scheduled to begin in San Francisco in June. Together, the trials reflect mounting legal and political pressure on an industry already under scrutiny from lawmakers and whistleblowers.
Parents involved in the case say the courtroom offers the first real chance for accountability.
“We’ve waited years for this moment,” said Juliana Arnold, a founding member of Parents RISE, whose teenage daughter died in 2022 after obtaining drugs through Instagram. “This isn’t just about one family. It’s about the truth finally being heard.”
Leave a Reply