LOS ANGELES, Feb 5, 2024 — A landmark civil trial began Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, raising the pivotal question of whether social media companies can be held liable for knowingly pushing products harmful to children. Attorneys engaged in over four hours of contentious opening arguments, setting the stage for a case that could dramatically reshape the relationship between tech companies and their youngest users.
A Potential Turning Point for Tech Accountability
The closely watched trial could result in billions of dollars in damages and redefine the rules of engagement for social media platforms.
- The case centers on allegations that YouTube and Instagram were intentionally designed to addict young users.
- TikTok and Snap settled similar lawsuits to avoid this trial, suggesting a concern within the industry.
- Internal documents from both Google and Meta are being presented as evidence of efforts to attract younger audiences.
- The outcome could establish a financial precedent for future lawsuits against social media companies.
Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl cautioned the 18 jurors and alternates against discussing the case, even with their own therapists, emphasizing the sensitivity and importance of the proceedings. This is the first of thousands of similar suits to reach trial in state and federal courts.
The plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M. from Chico, Calif., alleges she became addicted to social media as a child. She claims YouTube and Instagram were deliberately engineered to hook very young children, despite known design flaws that made their products dangerous. She made a brief appearance in court Monday.
“They wanted to capture Kaley before she even hit puberty,” stated Mark Lemeir, one of the young woman’s attorneys. “It’s addiction by design.” He indicated plans to rigorously question Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg when he testifies in the coming weeks.
Documents presented in court Monday revealed internal Instagram discussions about actively pursuing younger users, despite public statements about restricting access to those under 13. Similarly, Google documents appeared to incentivize shifting children from the YouTube Kids app to the main YouTube platform, even those not yet out of diapers.
The tech companies countered these claims, arguing that the plaintiff’s attorneys were misrepresenting internal documents to portray them negatively and attempting to hold them responsible for the actions of individual users and the plaintiff’s personal struggles.
“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,” Meta said in a statement last month. “These claims don’t reflect reality. The evidence will show a company deeply and responsibly confronting tough questions, conducting research, listening to parents, academics, and safety experts, and taking action.”
Meta’s legal team argued against the very concept of social media addiction, questioning its scientific validity and whether Kaley G.M. was actually addicted. “There are doctors who believe social media is addictive. There’s also doctors who believe it’s not,” said Paul W. Schmidt, a lawyer representing Meta. He noted that while three of G.M.’s therapists believed in social media addiction, none had formally diagnosed her with it.
Families have been attempting to hold social media companies accountable for harms to young users for over a decade, but have consistently faced legal hurdles. The platforms are largely protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields internet publishers from liability for user-generated content, and the First Amendment’s protections for free speech.
Plaintiffs in this case are attempting to circumvent these protections by alleging corporate negligence and flawed product design, a strategy similar to those used in lawsuits against opioid manufacturers like Purdue Pharma and tobacco companies in the 1990s.
Legal observers suggest a victory for the plaintiff could establish a financial benchmark for addiction liability, assigning a monetary value to the harms allegedly caused by social media, including suicide, eating disorders, dangerous challenges, and sextortion. “It’s really a valuation event,” said Jenny Kim, an attorney involved in a related lawsuit. “If this plaintiff is able to secure a big verdict, it’ll set an anchor value for the rest of the cases that go to trial.”
However, experts on both sides acknowledge the significant legal challenges facing G.M. Jurors will need to differentiate between the harmful actions of other users—such as bullying and unwanted advances—and the design choices made by the companies themselves.
During his opening statement, Lemeir presented internal documents, including a 2010s Google memo stating, “[the] goal is not viewership, it’s viewer addiction,” and a 2018 Meta document declaring, “if we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.”
The companies’ lawyers dismissed these documents as selectively presented and argued that any harm suffered by G.M. stemmed from other users, not the platforms themselves. Schmidt emphasized G.M.’s difficult childhood and pre-existing struggles with anxiety and depression, suggesting these factors were more significant than her social media use. “The allegation being made is it was all Instagram and not these other factors in her life” that caused G.M.’s suffering, Schmidt said. “If you took Instagram away and everything else was the same in Kaley’s life, would her life be completely different, or would she still be struggling with the same things she is today?”
YouTube’s legal team further argued that the platform is fundamentally different from social media and should not be categorized alongside Instagram. They contended that even if social media addiction is proven, it doesn’t apply to video-sharing platforms.
Internal documents revealed that YouTube allegedly sought to position itself as a convenient childcare solution. “Parents need a babysitter to entertain their kids,” YouTube stated in a 2012 document presented in court. “They want to trust that they can leave their child alone with the app to be safely entertained.”
The trial unfolds against a backdrop of growing public concern about the impact of social media on children and increasing distrust of the companies that operate these platforms. California recently banned cell phone use in public school classrooms beginning in January, largely in response to the prevalence of social media. Many private schools are also implementing stricter policies, urging parents to limit or prohibit app usage.
YouTube’s lawyers emphasized that the fates of the defendants are not intertwined, and jurors could find one company liable while absolving the other. This strategy may prove effective, as research suggests differing perceptions of the platforms among users, particularly parents.
However, Kim cautioned that juries often tend to hold all defendants collectively responsible in such cases. “Juries have a tendency to lump all the defendants together in these type of cases,” Kim said.
Regardless of the outcome, the trial’s testimony and documents are expected to further damage the reputations of these tech giants, particularly among parents and younger users. Several observers gathered at the courthouse in downtown Los Angeles at daybreak, visibly moved by the evidence presented. “All of our kids are on our shoulders,” said Lori Schott, whose daughter Annalee died by suicide after struggling with what she described as social media addiction. She added that the companies “knew that their design tactics were harming young girls’ mental health, and they didn’t back off. I would have parented a lot differently if I could have seen what we know now in this case.”
