The world’s biggest social media companies face several landmark trials this year that seek to hold them responsible for harms to children who use their platforms. Opening statements in one such trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court began on Monday.
Instagram’s parent company, Meta, and Google’s YouTube face claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.
Jurors got their first glimpse into what will be a lengthy trial characterized by duelling narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining social media companies named as defendants.
Meta lawyer Paul Schmidt spoke of the disagreement within the scientific community over social media addiction, with some believing it doesn’t exist or that addiction is not the most appropriate way to describe heavy social media use.
‘Addicting the brains of children’
Mark Lanier delivered the opening statement for the plaintiffs first, in a lively display where he said the case is as “easy as ABC,” which he said stands for “addicting the brains of children.” He called Meta and Google “two of the richest corporations in history” that have “engineered addiction in children’s brains.”
He presented jurors with a slew of internal emails, documents, and studies conducted by Meta, YouTube, and YouTube’s parent company, Google. He emphasized the findings of a meta-study called “Project Myst,” which surveyed 1,000 teens and their parents about their social media use.
The two major findings, Lanier said, were that the company knew children who experienced “adverse events” like trauma and stress were particularly vulnerable for addiction; and that parental supervision and controls made little impact.
He also showed internal Google documents that likened some company products to a casino, and internal Meta communications in which one employee said Instagram is “like a drug” and that employees are “basically pushers.”
At the core of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out.
Plaintiff grew up on YouTube, Instagram
KGM made a brief appearance after a break during Lanier’s statement, and she will return to testify later in the trial. Lanier spoke about her childhood, particularly focusing on her personality before she began using social media, noting that her mother called her a “creative spark” as a child.
She started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, Lanier said. Before she graduated from elementary school, she had posted 284 videos on YouTube.
The outcome of the trial could have profound effects on companies’ businesses and on how they handle children using their platforms.
Lanier said the companies’ lawyers will “try to blame the little girl and her parents for the trap they built,” referencing the plaintiff. She was a minor when she said she became addicted to social media platforms, which she claims had a detrimental impact on her mental health.
Lanier said that, despite Meta and YouTube publicly stating they work to protect children and implement safeguards for their use of the platforms, their internal documents show an entirely different position, with explicit references to young children as their target audiences.
“For a teenager, social validation is survival,” Lanier said. The defendants “engineered a feature that caters to a minor’s craving for social validation,” he added, speaking about “like” buttons and similar features.
Meta pushes back
In his opening statement representing Meta, Schmidt said the core question in the case is whether the platforms were a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles.
He spent much of his time going through the plaintiff’s health records, emphasizing that she had experienced many difficult circumstances in her childhood, including emotional abuse, body image issues, and bullying.
Schmidt presented a clip from a video deposition from one of KGM’s mental health providers, Dr. Thomas Suberman, who said social media was “not the throughline of what I recall being her main issues,” adding that her struggles seemed to largely stem from interpersonal conflicts and relationships.
He painted a picture of a particularly troubled relationship with her mother, with KGM’s own words in text messages and testimony pointing to a volatile home life.
Schmidt acknowledged that many mental health professionals do believe social media addiction can exist, but said three of KGM’s providers — all of whom believe in the form of addiction — have never diagnosed her with it or treated her for it.
One case of thousands
“This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today, and sadly, new families every day who are speaking out and bringing Big Tech to court for its deliberately harmful products,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the nonprofit Tech Oversight Project.
Jurors are not being asked to stop using Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, or any other forms of social media throughout the course of the trial — which is expected to last about eight weeks — but Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl emphasized that they should not make any changes to the way they interact with the platforms, including changing their settings or creating new accounts.
Kuhl said that jurors should decide Meta’s and YouTube’s liability independently when deliberating.
A separate trial in New Mexico, meanwhile, also kicked off with opening statements on Monday.
KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts.
Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits.
This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.
Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which is expected to last 6 to 8 weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.
