Los Angeles – A landmark legal case alleging social media companies intentionally engineered addictive platforms, harming a generation of young users, is underway in a California court. The suit, brought by K.G.M. And numerous other plaintiffs, including several school districts, centers on claims that companies like Meta, TikTok, and Snap Inc. Prioritized engagement over the well-being of their users, leading to mental health issues and diminished cognitive abilities. The case, which began with opening statements last week, is being closely watched as a potential turning point in the debate over tech accountability and the impact of social media on children.
K.G.M., whose full name is Kaley, alleges that her early exposure to platforms like YouTube (starting at age six), Instagram (age nine), Musical.ly (age ten), and Snapchat (age eleven) contributed to anxiety, body dysmorphia, and depression. The lawsuit contends that these companies employed techniques such as infinite scrolling to compel compulsive use, knowingly exploiting vulnerabilities in developing brains. Snap and TikTok settled out of court in January 2026, but Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, is contesting the allegations, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently testifying to defend the platform’s practices.
Internal Documents Reveal Concerns About Addiction
Central to the case are internal documents from Meta and TikTok that appear to acknowledge the addictive nature of their platforms. According to court filings, Meta researchers reportedly described Instagram as “a drug… we’re basically pushers,” while a TikTok report stated that “minors do not have executive mental function to control their screen time.” Snapchat executives, the suit alleges, acknowledged that users experience an “addiction [with] no room for anything else.” These internal assessments, revealed in documents first highlighted by CNN in November 2025, are fueling arguments that the companies were aware of the potential harms and prioritized profits over user safety. CNN
A “Big Tobacco Moment” for Tech?
The legal battle is drawing comparisons to past litigation against the tobacco industry, with some observers labeling it “Big Tech’s Big Tobacco Moment.” This analogy suggests that, like tobacco companies once downplayed the health risks of smoking, social media firms may have concealed or minimized the potential harms of their platforms. Neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath, testifying before Congress, presented data suggesting a correlation between the widespread adoption of one-to-one technology in schools and a decline in cognitive abilities among Gen Z students. CNN reported on this comparison.
Horvath suggested a simple experiment: comparing state-level data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) with the dates those states adopted widespread one-to-one technology initiatives. He claims the NAEP data shows a plateau and subsequent drop in scores following the implementation of these programs. NAEP data is available for review.
The Broader Legal Landscape and Growing Regulatory Scrutiny
The K.G.M. V. Meta et al. Case is considered a “bellwether” case, meaning its outcome could influence the handling of over 1,600 similar lawsuits that have been consolidated in California’s JCCP 5255. Santa Clara University School of Law provides information on the JCCP 5255 cases. Two additional trials are scheduled for March 9 and May 11. The legal action is unfolding against a backdrop of increasing regulatory scrutiny of social media’s impact on children. Twenty states have already enacted laws addressing the issue, and Australia has gone further, banning social media for children under 16, with Denmark and France considering similar measures.
Haidt’s Perspective: A Destruction of Attention
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of “The Anxious Generation,” has weighed in on the case, arguing that the harm caused by social media extends beyond mental illness to a broader “destruction of the human ability to pay attention.” Haidt highlighted internal TikTok reports revealing the company’s awareness of the addictive qualities of its platform and its optimization for engagement, even at the expense of users’ well-being. He shared a TikTok report stating that “compulsive usage correlates with a slew of mental health effects like loss of analytical skill, memory formation…and increased anxiety.”
“They knew … that they were addicting kids,” Jonathan Haidt tells @FareedZakaria. “The program was designed to be addictive. Instagram was designed to be addictive.” https://t.co/2025656972792529203
— Fareed Zakaria (@FareedZakaria) February 25, 2026
Haidt, in a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria, stated that tech leaders “knew… that they were addicting kids” and designed their platforms accordingly, rewarding engineers for increasing user engagement. He emphasized that the companies are now being held accountable in a way they never have before.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has also released resources for protecting children online, acknowledging the growing awareness of the harms associated with unsupervised internet access. The ERLC’s resources are available on their website.
The next key date in the case is March 9, when the second of the bellwether trials is scheduled to begin. The outcome of these trials will likely shape the future of social media regulation and the legal responsibilities of tech companies regarding the well-being of their young users.
What are your thoughts on the social media addiction trials? Share your comments below and join the conversation.
Keep reading
