LOS ANGELES, February 28, 2024 — A landmark trial began this week in Los Angeles that could redefine the legal landscape for social media companies, potentially altering the internet as we know it. The case, viewed as a bellwether for similar lawsuits nationwide—including a massive federal case involving over 2,000 plaintiffs—centers on accusations that platforms like Instagram are deliberately designed to be addictive, leading to significant mental health problems in users.
The core argument revolves around the claim that features such as endless scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, and push notifications are “defective products” that prioritize engagement over user well-being. Plaintiffs allege that companies failed to warn users about these risks and actively concealed potential dangers.
This Los Angeles case marks the first of its kind to reach trial, scheduled to last approximately six weeks, with a primary focus on Meta and its platform, Instagram. TikTok and Snap settled with the plaintiff last month, avoiding trial, while YouTube remains a defendant, though to a lesser extent. The company has stated that allegations against it are “simply untrue.”
Can the fundamental design of Instagram directly cause mental health issues in young people? That’s the central question jurors will grapple with, a significant risk for Meta as it allows the case to proceed, though an appeal is possible if they lose.
The plaintiff, identified as K.G.M. due to her status as a minor during the events in question, is a 19-year-old California woman who began using social media at age 10. Her lawsuit claims Instagram “targeted” her with “harmful and depressive content,” contributing to a negative body image and acts of self-harm. She also alleges experiencing bullying and sextortion on the app, with Instagram initially unresponsive until her family and friends repeatedly reported the issues over two weeks. K.G.M.’s older sister is a plaintiff in a separate case, suffering a life-threatening eating disorder allegedly triggered by Instagram and other social media use.
The allegations paint a damning picture of Meta’s practices. The company may be choosing to fight this battle now, recognizing the inevitability of further legal challenges. A win could slow the momentum of other lawsuits, and Meta may see an opportunity to defend its practices against accusations of deliberately harming children, comparisons to Big Tobacco, and concerns raised by internal documents leaked by former employee Frances Haugen in 2021.
Meta has responded to criticism with blog posts, enhanced parental controls, and advertising campaigns emphasizing safety and screen-time balance. One recent ad features Tom Brady discussing his son’s ability to connect with friends online as a “very much a value-add.”
“This will be their first chance to tell their story to a jury and get a sense of how well those arguments are playing,” said Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law.
K.G.M. is represented by the Seattle-based Social Media Victims Law Center, which filed a complaint in spring 2023 stating, “American children are suffering an unprecedented mental health crisis fueled by Defendants’ addictive and dangerous social media products.”
The complaint accuses social media companies of intentionally mimicking tactics used by the slot-machine and cigarette industries to create addictive products, arguing that apps have “rewired” children to prioritize digital “likes” over genuine relationships and “mindless scrolling” over real-world activities. The harms listed in K.G.M.’s case include “dangerous dependency,” “anxiety,” “depression,” “self-harm,” and “body dysmorphia.”
This case is significant due to its comprehensive scope, addressing the broader question of social media’s impact on young people, the potential concealment of harmful knowledge by Meta, and the meaning of the algorithm. The jury will also consider whether social media addiction is a legitimate condition and whether the pursuit of profit has led to harm for children.
A Meta spokesperson directed inquiries to an informational website about the lawsuit and a previous statement asserting that “Plaintiffs’ lawyers have selectively cited Meta’s internal documents to construct a misleading narrative, suggesting our platforms have harmed teens and that Meta has prioritized growth over their well-being. These claims don’t reflect reality.”
Goldman anticipates a skeptical jury, citing 10 years of critical media coverage and political debate surrounding tech companies. While Meta’s lawyers may present scientific arguments questioning a direct causal link between social media use and mental health problems, the case focuses on the impact on one individual.
Even if widespread “social media addiction” isn’t formally recognized, the jury must decide whether problematic internet use can contribute to the issues K.G.M. experienced and whether Meta bears responsibility. The legal burden rests on the plaintiff’s lawyers to prove this connection.
Corbin Barthold, internet-policy counsel at TechFreedom, described the prospect of “lawyers giving speech contests in front of a jury” as a flawed approach to resolving complex scientific disputes about social media’s effects.
The case challenges the protections afforded to social media companies by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which generally shields platforms from liability for user-generated content. Judge Carolyn Kuhl allowed the case to proceed because it focuses on design features—the recommendation algorithm and endless feed—rather than specific posts. This decision has drawn criticism from free-speech groups on both sides of the political spectrum.
A similar product-liability claim against Google and Character.AI, filed in 2024 by the mother of a teenager who died by suicide after forming a relationship with a chatbot, was settled out of court, signaling a potential shift in legal interpretation, according to University of Buffalo School of Law professor Mark Bartholomew, and a “growing willingness” among courts to apply product-liability principles to software.
James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and information law at Cornell Law School, views this trial as “a brick in a potential wall.” He suggests that continued losses could force Meta to implement significant changes, potentially including eliminating content recommendations or the endless feed, impacting not only Meta but any internet service catering to users under 18.
Pete Etchells, a professor of psychology and science communication at Bath Spa University, expressed frustration with the polarized debate, noting the tendency to either deny any harm or equate social media to cigarettes, a comparison he deems illogical. He emphasized the need for nuanced research and a balanced approach, while acknowledging public demand for accountability from tech companies.
Even if scientific evidence generally supports the companies, the facts may be different in K.G.M.’s specific case. After years of debate, reports, and failed legislation, the decision now rests with the jury, tasked with evaluating the evidence and reaching a verdict.
