Plaintiffs and defendants head to a Los Angeles County Superior Court this week as a high-profile lawsuit challenges whether major social media platforms bear legal responsibility for harm to a young user’s mental health. The case centers on a 19-year-old California woman identified in filings as K.G.M., who alleges that she developed an addiction to apps from Meta, TikTok and YouTube at an early age - an addiction she says contributed to depression and suicidal thoughts.
At issue for the jury is whether the companies were negligent in offering products that, according to the complaint, harmed K.G.M. The legal question will require jurors to evaluate if the plaintiff’s use of the apps was a substantial factor in her mental-health struggles, or whether other elements - including the third-party content she viewed or offline circumstances in her life - were the principal drivers.
In court filings and pre-trial statements, the companies have laid out defenses and distinctions they intend to press at trial. Meta has told Reuters it will argue its products did not cause the plaintiff’s mental-health problems. YouTube maintains that its platform differs in fundamental ways from social apps such as Instagram and TikTok and should not be treated as the same kind of service in the courtroom. TikTok has declined to preview its courtroom arguments publicly.
The case marks what plaintiff counsel describes as the first time the major tech firms must defend themselves at trial on claims that their product design contributed to youth mental-health harm. "They will be under a level of scrutiny that does not exist when you testify in front of Congress," plaintiff attorney Matthew Bergman said.
Observers note the case will act as a bellwether, testing legal theories that seek to link platform design to individual harm. "This is really a test case," said Clay Calvert, a media lawyer at the American Enterprise Institute. "We’re going to see what happens with these theories" that social platforms caused injury to the plaintiff.
Executives from the companies are expected to appear as witnesses. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify, and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel was also expected to take the stand earlier in the proceeding; Snap was named as a defendant but reached a settlement with the plaintiff on January 20. A Snap spokesperson declined to discuss the terms of that agreement. Other companies involved have retained high-profile legal teams with experience in complex litigation involving addiction-related claims.
Alongside courtroom arguments about causation and negligence, the trial will unfold against a backdrop of public relations and safety-focused efforts by the firms. The companies have been promoting parental-control tools and other policies they say help protect teen users, and they have backed community outreach and education initiatives aimed at parents and youth.
Meta, for example, has sponsored parent workshops under a program called Screen Smart, and the company held one such event in Los Angeles in 2024 alongside the National PTA President and Meta’s head of safety, according to prior reporting. TikTok has partnered with regional and local PTAs in sponsored events branded Create with Kindness, offering tutorials for parents on features such as nighttime screen-time limits. YouTube’s parent company, Google, has worked with the Girl Scouts on educational modules related to online safety, digital privacy and etiquette, through a program that includes a patch for participants.
The firms have also hired legal counsel with histories in large, addiction-related litigation. Public attorney biographies indicate that Meta retained lawyers from Covington & Burling who previously represented McKesson in wide-ranging opioid litigation. TikTok’s counsel has history representing parties in disputes over game design and addiction, such as acting for Activision Blizzard and Microsoft in a separate matter. Those hires underscore the companies’ intent to mount full legal defenses in court.
Advocacy groups and parents’ organizations express concern that corporate messaging and outreach can blur the lines for families seeking reliable guidance. "These companies are using every lever of influence that you can imagine," said Julie Scelfo, founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction, a group that supports smartphone bans in schools. "It can be very confusing for parents who to trust." The trial could therefore influence public opinion as much as legal precedent, observers say.
Legal issues for the jury
The jury will be asked to weigh several discrete questions: whether the companies were negligent in the design or promotion of their products; whether that negligence was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s depression and suicidal ideation; and how to apportion responsibility if other causes are also shown to have contributed. Those questions mirror arguments previewed by counsel and observers and will drive the trial record.
Wider implications
Beyond the parties involved, the case is likely to be watched by other plaintiffs who have filed or are preparing similar suits asserting "social media addiction" harmed young people. It will also be tracked by lawmakers, regulators, and industry counsel as a measure of how courts handle liability claims tied to platform design and content moderation.
For now, the trial will move forward with testimony from senior executives and presentations from both sides about product design, safety measures, and the role of third-party content. The verdict will rest with jurors' determinations about causation and negligence on the evidence presented.
Summary of the case
- The plaintiff, identified as K.G.M., alleges she was addicted to apps from Meta, TikTok, YouTube and others at a young age and that the apps contributed to her depression and suicidal thoughts.
- Meta, TikTok and YouTube deny that their products caused the plaintiff’s mental-health problems; YouTube argues its service is materially different from other social platforms.
- Snap, a named defendant, reached a settlement with the plaintiff on January 20 and is no longer expected to be litigated at trial.