The world’s largest social media companies are finally being forced into a courtroom to answer a question that has been circling for years: are their platforms merely neutral tools, or are they deliberately engineered products that harm children for profit.
That question will be put to a jury this week in Los Angeles County Superior Court, as opening arguments begin in what may become one of the most consequential tech trials of this decade.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram, and Google’s YouTube are the remaining defendants in the case. TikTok and Snap, both originally named, chose to settle quietly for undisclosed sums. The claims they avoided, however, have not gone away. At the center of the lawsuit is a 19-year-old plaintiff identified as KGM, whose experience will serve as a bellwether for hundreds of similar cases brought by families and school districts across the country.
KGM alleges that she became addicted to social media at a young age and that her compulsive use worsened depression and suicidal thoughts. Crucially, the lawsuit does not frame this as an unfortunate side effect of modern life. It argues that addiction was the point.
According to the complaint, social media companies deliberately adopted design features modeled on techniques used by slot machines and, historically, by the tobacco industry, embedding feedback loops meant to maximize youth engagement and advertising revenue.
That framing is not accidental. If the plaintiffs can convince a jury that these harms stem from product design rather than user-generated content, they may be able to pierce two of Big Tech’s strongest legal shields: the First Amendment and Section 230. This is why the case is being watched so closely. It is the first time these arguments will be tested before a jury rather than dismissed on procedural grounds.
Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify during a trial projected to last six to eight weeks. Legal experts have already drawn comparisons to the Big Tobacco cases of the 1990s, which began as isolated lawsuits and culminated in a massive settlement that reshaped an entire industry. The parallel is not lost on either side.
Meta and Google strongly deny the allegations. Both companies argue that teen mental health is complex and multifaceted, and that blaming social media alone oversimplifies a serious issue influenced by academic pressure, family dynamics, substance abuse, and broader social stressors. They point to safeguards, parental controls, and safety features added over time, and insist they are not liable for content posted by third parties.
But this case is about more than one platform or one plaintiff. More than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, and additional trials involving school districts and child exploitation claims are already queued up for later this year. The outcome in Los Angeles will not settle the issue on its own, but it will set the tone.
For the first time, a jury will be asked to decide whether the damage described by parents and young users is an unintended consequence of innovation, or the foreseeable result of choices made in boardrooms and product design meetings.
