Meta and Google Face Landmark Trial Over Alleged Social Media Addiction in Children

The global technology sector has entered a defining legal moment as a major trial accusing Meta and Google of intentionally addicting children to social media platforms has formally commenced in the United States.

The case, being heard in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, has the potential to significantly alter how digital platforms are built, regulated, and held accountable for their effects on young users.

Opening arguments began on Monday, signalling the start of a closely followed legal battle that is expected to stretch over several weeks. Legal experts say the outcome could have sweeping consequences for Big Tech, public health policy, and child protection standards across the world.

What the Lawsuit Involves

Claims Against Meta and Google

Meta, the parent company of Instagram, and Google, which owns YouTube, are facing allegations that their platforms were deliberately designed to foster addictive behaviour among children, leading to harm to their mental health. The lawsuit contends that specific product features were created to maximise engagement and screen time, ultimately boosting advertising revenues.

TikTok and Snap were initially named as defendants but exited the case after reaching settlements for undisclosed sums. As a result, Meta and Google remain the primary defendants.

Jurors are now being presented with starkly opposing arguments from the plaintiffs and the technology companies, setting the stage for a case that could influence hundreds of similar lawsuits filed across the United States.

Opening Statements: Two Conflicting Accounts

Plaintiffs’ Case: “Addicting the Brains of Children”

Mark Lanier, appearing for the plaintiffs, delivered an emphatic opening statement, describing the case as “easy as ABC,” which he said stands for “addicting the brains of children.” He characterised Meta and Google as “two of the richest corporations in history” that have “engineered addiction in children’s brains.”

Lanier placed heavy emphasis on internal emails, studies, and documents produced by Meta, YouTube, and Google. Among the most prominent pieces of evidence cited was Meta’s internal research initiative known as “Project Myst,” which involved surveys of 1,000 teenagers and their parents.

According to Lanier, the research revealed two key insights. First, children who had experienced “adverse events” such as trauma and stress were especially susceptible to addiction. Second, parental monitoring tools and supervision were shown to have minimal impact.

He also pointed to internal Google materials that likened YouTube to a casino, as well as Meta communications in which Instagram was described as “like a drug,” with employees calling themselves “basically pushers.”

Lanier drew parallels between the current case and past litigation against tobacco companies, arguing that social media firms continued to pursue young users despite being aware of potential harms.

Defence Argument: Questioning Addiction and Causation

Paul Schmidt, representing Meta, countered that there is no clear scientific agreement on whether social media addiction exists or whether the term “addiction” accurately describes heavy platform use.

Schmidt told jurors that the central issue is whether social media use was a “substantial factor” in causing the plaintiff’s mental health difficulties. He highlighted medical records showing that the plaintiff had faced emotional abuse, bullying, and body image struggles unrelated to social media.

He also cited testimony from Dr. Thomas Suberman, one of KGM’s mental health providers, who stated that social media was “not the throughline of what I recall being her main issues.”

Schmidt noted that while several of KGM’s healthcare providers accept that social media addiction can exist, none diagnosed or treated her for it.

“This case is not about whether social media is good or bad,” Schmidt said, arguing that the focus must remain on causation and legal responsibility.

The Bellwether Plaintiff at the Centre

Who Is KGM and Why Her Case Is Crucial

The Los Angeles proceedings centre on a 20-year-old plaintiff identified only as “KGM.” Her lawsuit has been selected as a bellwether trial, meaning its outcome could shape how thousands of related cases move forward nationwide.

Lanier told jurors that KGM’s mother once described her as a “creative spark” before she began using social media platforms. Testimony revealed that KGM started using YouTube at the age of six and joined Instagram at nine. By the time she finished elementary school, she had uploaded 284 videos to YouTube.

KGM alleges that early and prolonged exposure to these platforms led to addiction, deepened depression, and contributed to suicidal thoughts.

Platform Design Under Examination

Likes, Algorithms, and Validation Loops

Lanier argued that core platform features — including “like” buttons, recommendation algorithms, and notifications — were intentionally crafted to exploit children’s psychological need for approval.

“For a teenager, social validation is survival,” Lanier told jurors, claiming the companies “engineered a feature that caters to a minor’s craving for social validation.”

The lawsuit maintains that such design choices were profit-driven and, if classified as product design rather than content moderation, could weaken legal protections such as Section 230 and First Amendment defences.

Wider Legal and Regulatory Implications

A Wave of Trials Across the US

The Los Angeles case is just one part of a broader legal reckoning. According to Sacha Haworth of the Tech Oversight Project, “there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today.”

Other legal actions include a New Mexico trial alleging Meta failed to protect children from sexual exploitation, a federal bellwether trial in Oakland scheduled for June involving school districts, and lawsuits filed by more than 40 US state attorneys general accusing Meta of contributing to a youth mental health crisis.

TikTok is also facing similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states. Senior executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify in upcoming cases.

Global Push to Protect Children Online

Governments worldwide are moving to restrict children’s access to social media. France has approved legislation banning social media use for children under 15 starting in September, while Australia has imposed an even stricter ban for users under 16.

These steps reflect growing international pressure to impose stronger safeguards on digital platforms used by minors.

Trial Timeline and Jury Instructions

The trial is expected to continue for six to eight weeks. Jurors have been instructed not to alter their own social media usage during the proceedings and to assess Meta and YouTube’s liability independently.

Conclusion

The trial against Meta and Google marks a critical juncture in the global conversation on social media accountability. With internal company documents, expert testimony, and comparisons to Big Tobacco litigation, the case could fundamentally reshape how technology companies design products for children and how legal protections are applied.

As scrutiny from governments, courts, and families intensifies, the verdict may play a decisive role in shaping the future of child safety, digital governance, and corporate responsibility in the online world.