Meta and Google are on trial over social media addiction. Here’s what to know.

Social media companies are facing a mounting tide of landmark trials across the U.S. for claims that their platform design choices harm young people.

The first trial addressing social media addiction, held at the Los Angeles Superior Court, analyzes the case filed by a now 20-year-old woman, identifying as K.G.M. She is suing Meta and YouTube (Google’s platform) for designing platforms that are addictive and harmful, which made her experience body dysmorphia, anxiety, and depression as a child. TikTok and Snap have already settled.

Time and again, CCDH research has shown that social media platforms use addictive algorithms that often push harmful and extreme content to young people’s feeds. They send them down dangerous rabbit holes and keep them scrolling. This young woman’s story is a clear example of how these addictive platforms affect young people’s mental health and wellbeing. Our research has found that:

• TikTok and YouTube recommend dangerous body dysmorphia, eating disorders and self-harm content to teenage girls
• TikTok promotes content that encourages the sale of dangerous steroids & steroid-like drugs to teens
• Meta’s Horizon Worlds exposes minors to bullying, harassment, and explicit content
• YouTube hosts extreme misogyny videos that promote the mistreatment of girls and women featuring Andrew Tate

Why are these trials so important?

The social media addiction trials could establish once and for all that these platforms are addictive by design, creating legal precedent for other courts to hold these companies and their executives responsible for harming users.

These trials are the first of their kind because they attempt to avoid the Section 230 immunity shield enjoyed by social media companies. Rather than focusing on the harmful content posted by users, they call out the intentional design choices that amplify engaging and often dangerous content. The theory of the case hopes to hold these companies directly responsible for boosting the harms that impact so many kids and teens today.

The plaintiff has succeeded in reaching the trial stage; however, overcoming the generous protections of Section 230 remains an uphill battle.

Join our email community to stay up-to-date:

What to watch out for during and after the trials?

1. How lawyers will build the case for social media platforms being addictive products, with a similar argument used against tobacco companies in the 20th century.

CCDH’s principles for social media reform, the STAR Framework, push companies to prioritize safety-by-design. Platforms have the technology and power to design safer algorithms and products from the start, which would avoid harming children and other users. It is a choice, but most platforms are choosing not to invest in safety.

2. The excuses social media bosses like Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram’s Adam Mosseri, and YouTube’s Neal Mohan are using to convince the jury that their platforms are safe.

As we have seen over the year, social media executives will always deny, deflect and delay responsibility for their failures when their profits are at stake, regardless of how harmful their products are. Multiple reputable studies recognize social media abuse as a clinical addiction.

3. How a positive result against social media companies could be a huge step to holding these companies responsible for harming young people and giving social media victims the justice they deserve.

A win in court does not mean that social media regulation isn’t necessary. Regulation is key to enforcing safety-by-design and ensuring the harms don’t happen in the first place. Every other industry in America has to follow a set of rules to ensure people’s safety. Why should social media companies be different?

CCDH will be watching developments of the social media addiction trials. Want to stay updated? Join our community.