A landmark trial involving several major social media companies is set to begin in Los Angeles this week, marking the first time U.S. courts will hear a case that directly challenges whether popular platforms intentionally design their products to be addictive for teenagers. The outcome could have broad implications for the tech industry, online regulation, and how platforms are held accountable for potential harm to young users.
The Case at a Glance
The trial centers on claims brought by a 19-year-old woman, identified in court filings as KGM, who alleges that prolonged social media use from a young age led to addiction and worsened depression and suicidal thoughts. The lawsuit argues that platforms including Meta’s Instagram, ByteDance’s TikTok, and Google’s YouTube deliberately incorporated design features meant to maximize user engagement—particularly among teens—to increase advertising revenue.
Snapchat’s parent company, Snap Inc., was also named in the lawsuit but reached an undisclosed settlement prior to trial. Jury selection began this week and is expected to take several days, with dozens of potential jurors questioned daily.
A Potential Legal Turning Point
The case is notable because it attempts to move beyond longstanding legal protections afforded to tech companies. Currently, platforms are generally shielded from liability for user-generated content under the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
However, plaintiffs argue this case is different: rather than focusing on content posted by users, they claim the companies intentionally engineered addictive features—such as algorithmic feeds, notifications, and reward-based engagement systems—to keep young users online longer. If successful, the lawsuit could establish a new precedent, exposing platforms to damages for harms allegedly caused by product design choices.
Broader Context: Teens and Social Media Use
Social media is nearly universal among U.S. teenagers. Surveys show that up to 95% of teens ages 13–17 use at least one platform, with nearly half reporting they are online “almost constantly.” The lawsuit likens engagement strategies used by social media companies to tactics historically associated with gambling and tobacco industries, arguing they exploit adolescent brain development.
Industry Response
Tech companies have rejected claims that their platforms intentionally harm young users. In a recent blog post, Meta stated it has implemented safeguards to protect teens and should not be held responsible for content posted by users. The company also emphasized that teen mental health challenges are complex and influenced by multiple factors, including academic pressure, school safety concerns, socio-economic stress, and substance use.
Researchers remain divided, with some studies suggesting social media can contribute to mental health challenges in certain users, while others find mixed or inconclusive effects and call for more nuanced research.
Political and Public Debate
The trial unfolds amid growing political attention to youth mental health and technology. Both President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden have argued that social media may exacerbate mental health problems among young people, though critics note that the scientific evidence is still evolving. Regardless of the verdict, the case highlights years of debate over the responsibility of technology companies to protect younger users.
If the plaintiffs prevail, platforms could face mandated design changes, expanded legal liability, and possible compensation claims from affected users. Such outcomes could reshape how social media products are built and regulated in the United States.
A Global Movement to Regulate Youth Access
Concerns about teen social media use are not limited to the U.S. Governments worldwide are exploring restrictions:
Australia has passed a law banning social media use for children under 16, requiring companies to prevent underage account creation and access.
France recently approved legislation banning social media for children under 15, scheduled to take effect at the start of the next school year. President Emmanuel Macron described the move as a response to scientific recommendations and public demand.
The United Kingdom is also considering similar restrictions for younger teens.
These developments reflect growing international scrutiny of how digital platforms affect children’s well-being and development.
What Comes Next
As the trial proceeds, legal experts, parents, educators, and tech leaders alike will be watching closely. Regardless of the outcome, the case represents a significant moment in the ongoing discussion about technology’s role in young people’s lives and where responsibility lies when innovation intersects with public health.
