One of the biggest cases ever concerned with the ways social media companies engage young users will test claims about addiction, as well as the tech giants’ protections under the First Amendment.
READ MORE: Massachusetts court hears arguments in lawsuit alleging Meta designed apps to be addictive to kids
A California woman alleges she became addicted to social media apps as a child, leading to physical and emotional harm. Her case is the first in a series accusing major social media companies of designing their products to be addictive, especially to children.
Jury selection began Jan. 27 in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Here’s what you need to know about the trial.
Who is suing and who is being sued?
This case centers on one complainant, referred to in court documents as K.G.M., but she’s one part of a huge group of plaintiffs who are suing the social media companies. That’s because her case is part of a consolidated group of cases representing thousands of plaintiffs, collectively known as JCCP 5255.
K.G.M. alleges she started watching YouTube at age 6, and had Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok accounts by the time she was 14, according to reporting by Courthouse News Service. The lawsuits originally named Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram; ByteDance, which until recently owned a majority stake ins TikTok; Snap, which owns Snapchat; and Google, which owns YouTube, as the defendants.
Snap settled their case with K.G.M. last week, and TikTok struck a deal on Tuesday. It’s not clear what the terms of the settlements are.
Joseph VanZandt, co-lead counsel for the JCCP 5255 plaintiffs, said in a statement that “TikTok remains a defendant in other personal injury cases in the JCCP.” He added that K.G.M.’s trial against Meta and YouTube will proceed, and opening arguments are expected next week.
What does the lawsuit argue?
In short, the lawsuit claims that the companies intentionally designed and built their social media products to be addictive, and “specifically targeted minors as a core market” for their platforms in order to generate income.
“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, [d]efendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit alleges.
“Like the cigarette industry a generation earlier, [d]efendants understand that a child user today becomes an adult user tomorrow,” the lawsuit adds.
K.G.M. alleges that a lack of sufficient guardrails and warnings on the social media platforms led to compulsive use and mental health concerns such as depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, self-harm and risk of suicide.
“So much of the case turns on the concept that social media services have deliberately designed their offerings in a way that addicts users,” Eric Goldman, law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, told PBS News. “They’re saying that the social media services should have designed their offerings differently.”
The plaintiff argues that the endless scrolling feature is one example of these apps having been designed to be addictive, Goldman said.
What do tech companies say?
The social media companies dispute these claims on a number of counts, he added, including challenging the very idea of social media addiction.
The defendants have argued that “there aren’t clinical definitions of social media addiction, and if there were, there’s not a law that recognizes those,” Goldman said. “So the plaintiffs are trying to establish a legal theory that doesn’t have a clear medical, psychological or legal backing.”
WATCH: New study finds link between pre-teen use of social media and depression
The social media companies also say that even if social media addiction is real, it’s not possible to determine that their products caused the addiction, Goldman said. He noted that the “question about causation is super complicated in the law.”
“Just because someone might contribute to an outcome doesn’t mean that they caused that outcome from a legal standpoint,” he said.
What are the possible outcomes of the trial?
This trial could result in a verdict against either of the two remaining defendants, further settlements, or a verdict in favor of the defense, said Daryl Lim, law professor at Penn State Dickinson Law, in an email.
Right now a settlement is unlikely given how far apart the sides are, Goldman said. But it’s possible that as the trial proceeds, and either or both sides see how the jury reacts, a settlement may become more possible.
If the case isn’t settled, regardless of the verdict, “appeals are guaranteed,” he added. “There are millions and millions of dollars sunk into both sides. They’re going to spend the money to appeal it, too.”
What might the implications be for social media companies in the future?
These early cases against social media companies, including K.G.M.’s, are being watched as “bellwether trials” that could influence how many other claims are handled legally, Lim said.
They’ll offer legal experts their first opportunity to see how Americans respond to the idea that social media can cause addiction, Goldman said.
The case could have implications for how future courts handle Section 230, part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that social media companies often invoke to legally protect themselves from being sued over user-generated content, according to Lim.
READ MORE: Is childproofing the internet constitutional? A legal expert explains
“This trial is really testing whether these claims concern user speech, where Section 230 is a powerful shield, or product design, where the shield may not apply in the same way,” Lim said.
The defendants have argued that the problem is not the design of their products — such as infinite scrolling and algorithmic recommendations — but the content produced, which is protected under the First Amendment and Section 230.
“Even if the defense loses, it will not mean platforms suddenly become liable for all user-generated content,” Lim said. “The narrower significance is that courts may treat addictive or unsafe design as actionable conduct distinct from protected content moderation or publication.
The national and international legal landscape is changing as well. In 2025, 20 states enacted laws concerning social media and children, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Australia enacted the world’s first ban on social media for children under 16 in December, and Denmark and France are considering similar rules.
Goldman believes that even if social media companies triumph in this lawsuit, they still face an uphill battle in an unfavorable legal environment.
A free press is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
Support trusted journalism and civil dialogue.
