A Los Angeles courtroom is set to host a groundbreaking trial, one that could redefine the relationship between social media and its users. At the heart of the case are accusations that major platforms are intentionally engineered to be addictive, a design choice with devastating consequences for vulnerable individuals.
The lawsuit centers on the experiences of a 19-year-old, known only as K.G.M., who alleges that her addiction to social media spiraled into a battle with depression and ultimately, suicidal thoughts. Her legal battle initially targeted Meta (Instagram and Facebook), Snap (Snapchat), TikTok, and YouTube, but settlements with Snap and TikTok have narrowed the focus to Meta and YouTube.
For years, the addictive nature of social media has been a growing concern, prompting congressional hearings and platform adjustments aimed at younger users. Just this past June, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a stark warning, calling for labels on social media acknowledging the significant mental health risks for adolescents.
This case, filed nearly four years ago, gained momentum after a judge rejected attempts by the social media companies to have the claims dismissed. It represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate about the responsibility of tech giants for the well-being of their users.
Both YouTube and Meta vehemently deny the allegations, arguing their platforms are not designed to be addictive. They also cite Section 230, a federal law that generally protects online platforms from liability for content posted by users, as a shield against K.G.M.’s claims.
However, that legal protection hasn’t proven absolute. Lawyers representing K.G.M. contend that Section 230 has been misused by social media companies to evade accountability for the inherent design of their products.
“Section 230 has been liberally construed far beyond its language or intent,” explains Matthew P. Bergman, a leading attorney in the field. “It has, until recently, been seen as a virtual free pass for social media companies to operate with complete immunity.”
The core of K.G.M.’s argument lies in the platforms’ features – infinite scroll, autoplay, and constant notifications – all meticulously crafted to maximize engagement, and ultimately, advertising revenue. These aren’t accidental features, but deliberate design choices.
This Los Angeles trial is being closely watched as a potential bellwether for future litigation across the country. Legal experts draw parallels to the landmark lawsuits against tobacco companies in the 1990s, which exposed manipulative marketing tactics targeting young people.
The lawsuit directly accuses the platforms of borrowing techniques from slot machines and the cigarette industry, deliberately embedding addictive elements to capture and retain youth attention. This strategy, the suit alleges, prioritized profit over the mental health of its users.
The timing of jury selection is significant, coming on the heels of a ruling in Iowa that allowed a lawsuit against TikTok to proceed. That case alleges the platform misrepresented the amount of inappropriate content accessible to children, further highlighting the growing legal scrutiny of social media practices.
