Plaintiff Testifies in Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial
A 20-year-old plaintiff says YouTube use from age 6 and Instagram from age 9 harmed her mental health; the bellwether could affect more than 1,600 suits and force platform changes.
Overview
On Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, K.G.M., now 20, told jurors that using YouTube from age 6 and Instagram from age 9 harmed her self‑worth and led to depression and self‑harm.
Her case is the first bellwether in a consolidated group of more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including more than 350 families and 250 school districts, and could set precedent on platform liability.
Meta and Google deny wrongdoing, with Meta filing a brief attributing earlier family problems to K.G.M.'s mental health while her former therapist testified that social media was a contributing, not sole, factor.
TikTok and Snap settled shortly before the trial, leaving Meta and YouTube as defendants, and jurors could award damages and order design changes if they rule for the plaintiff.
Jurors are expected to hear from K.G.M.'s mother and a child and adolescent psychiatrist next, and the trial is expected to continue until mid‑March.
Analysis
Center-leaning sources show framing. Editorial choices foreground the plaintiff’s emotional testimony and trauma—leading with vivid personal quotes and diagnoses—while briefly presenting defendants’ technical/legal rebuttals. Source content (quotes like 'I stopped engaging with family' and descriptions of 'autoplay') appear prominently, and structural emphasis and word choice create a sympathetic, harm-focused narrative.
Sources (6)
FAQ
The search results and article do not specify what particular design changes could be mandated. However, the landmark nature of this bellwether case means the trial outcome could establish precedent for platform liability. If jurors rule for the plaintiff, they have the authority to order design changes in addition to awarding damages. Given the allegations focus on how social media platforms target and addict young users, potential changes could involve age verification systems, algorithmic modifications that reduce addictive features, parental controls, or content recommendations—though these specific modifications are not detailed in the available materials.
A bellwether case is the first trial in a large group of similar lawsuits, designed to test legal theories and provide guidance for resolving the remaining cases. K.G.M.'s case represents the first of more than 1,600 consolidated plaintiffs, including over 350 families and 250 school districts. The outcome will likely establish precedent on platform liability for social media harm to minors. If the plaintiff prevails, it could encourage settlements or similar rulings in the other cases; if defendants win, it may weaken plaintiffs' positions in remaining suits. This is why the trial's outcome through mid-March 2026 is expected to significantly influence how the broader litigation develops.
Meta has argued that K.G.M.'s earlier family problems contributed to her mental health issues, attempting to shift responsibility away from their platform. Additionally, Meta and other platforms rely on Section 230, a legal provision that protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content. However, a California court in October 2024 ruled that Section 230 would not fully protect Meta from allegations of unfairness, deception, and failure to warn users about risks. Meta and Google deny wrongdoing entirely, and Meta has been fighting court orders to produce detailed information about its policies for minors. K.G.M.'s former therapist testified that social media was a contributing factor, not the sole cause of her mental health issues—a distinction defendants may use to argue shared causation.
The search results confirm that TikTok and Snap settled shortly before the trial began, while Meta and YouTube remained as defendants. However, the specific reasons for their settlement decisions are not disclosed in the available materials. Companies may settle for various strategic reasons, including assessing litigation risk, weighing settlement costs against potential damages and publicity harm, or business considerations. The fact that these two platforms chose to resolve their cases before trial while Meta and Google proceeded suggests they may have evaluated their legal exposure differently.
The search results indicate that the district's lawsuit alleges Meta, Snap, TikTok, and Google used harmful tactics similar to those employed by big tobacco and gambling companies, suggesting they deliberately designed addictive features. The lawsuit contains allegations of unfairness, deception, and failure to warn users about risks to mental health. However, the specific evidence presented at trial—such as internal company documents, expert testimony, or data on algorithmic design—is not detailed in the available search results. K.G.M.'s testimony and testimony from a child and adolescent psychiatrist are expected to provide evidence of harm, but the comparative evidence linking platform tactics to tobacco and gambling strategies would require additional trial documentation.
History
This story does not have any previous versions.