Tech Firms Head To Court As Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial Begins

A closely watched trial that could reshape how social media companies are held accountable in the United States is set to begin in California, with senior executives from some of the world’s largest tech firms expected to testify.

The case, which will be heard at the Los Angeles Superior Court, was brought by a 19-year-old woman identified as KGM. She alleges that the design of major social media platforms caused her to develop compulsive usage habits that harmed her mental health.

Among the defendants are Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, Google, which owns YouTube, and ByteDance, the owner of TikTok. Snapchat was also initially named in the lawsuit but reached a settlement with the plaintiff last week.

Legal experts say the trial is the first of its kind to reach a jury and could set a precedent for a growing number of similar lawsuits accusing social media platforms of fostering addiction through their design features.

KGM’s legal team argues that algorithmic recommendations, notifications, and other engagement-driven tools were deliberately engineered to keep users online, particularly young people, without adequate safeguards. The companies, however, have denied responsibility, insisting that the evidence does not prove a direct link between their platforms and alleged conditions such as depression or eating disorders.

The case also tests the limits of Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, a law that has long protected online platforms from liability for user-generated content. Unlike previous lawsuits, this trial focuses on product design and platform architecture rather than what users post.

Matthew Bergman, the plaintiff’s lawyer, said the proceedings would mark the first time a jury is asked to directly assess the role of social media companies in alleged harm to young users. He argued that the firms prioritised profits over user wellbeing by deploying what he described as addictive systems.

Some legal scholars warn the stakes are high for the industry. Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, said an adverse ruling could pose serious risks to social media business models, though he noted that proving causation in mental health cases remains legally challenging.

Jurors are expected to hear testimony supported by internal company documents, which could offer rare insight into how social media platforms assess user engagement and risk. Mary Graw Leary, a law professor at the Catholic University of America, said much of the information companies have historically kept out of public view may be scrutinised in open court.

One of the most anticipated moments of the trial is the expected testimony of Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg. He previously told US lawmakers in 2024 that existing scientific research had not established a causal link between social media use and declining mental health among young people, though he also issued a public apology to families affected by online harms during the same Senate hearing.

The companies are likely to argue that any alleged damage stems from user behaviour rather than platform design, maintaining that they have introduced safety tools aimed at protecting younger users. Critics, however, have questioned the effectiveness of those measures.

The trial unfolds amid intensifying global scrutiny of social media companies. In the United States, multiple states have filed lawsuits accusing Meta of misleading the public about the risks associated with social media use. Elsewhere, Australia has introduced a ban on social media access for children under 16, while the UK has signalled it may consider similar restrictions.

Legal analysts say the case reflects a broader shift in how regulators and courts view the tech sector. As pressure mounts from families, schools, and governments, observers believe the era of lenient treatment for social media firms may be drawing to a close.