- Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg defends Instagram in court against allegations of addiction by a 20-year-old.
- The trial in Los Angeles could have an impact on around 1,500 other cases against tech companies.
- Meta and Google deny that their platforms are deliberately addictive – and point to protective measures.
It’s a trial that’s making the tech industry sit up and take notice: Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg has to face trial in person in Los Angeles. A 20-year-old plaintiff accuses the company of intentionally designing Instagram in such a way that young users become addicted. The case could set the tone for hundreds of similar proceedings.
The accusation: Addiction as a business model
Table of Contents
The plaintiff, who appears anonymously under the initials KGM, has been using Instagram since she was a child. Their lawyers argue that platforms like Instagram are deliberately addictive through features like the endless scrolling feed. The goal: longer usage times, which are directly reflected in higher advertising revenue. The young woman attributes her depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts to the intensive use.
Attorney Mark Lanier puts it clearly: Corporations are creating “addiction in children’s brains.” In addition to Meta, Google is also in court with YouTube. Snapchat and TikTok have already withdrawn from similar proceedings through settlements.
Zuckerberg’s defense and admissions
In his statement on Wednesday, Zuckerberg acknowledged weaknesses but rejected the main allegations. Meta no longer sets goals for app usage times, he emphasized. At the same time, he admitted deficiencies in age control: users under the age of 13 still manage to access Instagram – even though the platform is only officially released for people of this age. If such accounts are discovered, they would be removed, said the Meta boss.
Instagram boss Adam Mosseri added to the defense with a remarkable comparison: The platform is not clinically addictive, just as excessive watching of series is not a clinical addiction. Meta also refers to protective measures such as special teenage accounts and parental supervision functions.
The counter-statement: family instead of algorithm
The meta-lawyers take a different direction. They argue that the plaintiff’s psychological problems predated her use of social media. Abuse and an unstable family situation are the actual causes. Evidence is said to demonstrate previous challenges in the young woman’s life.
Google takes a different approach: YouTube is not a social network, but a streaming service like Netflix or Disney+. Between 2020 and 2024, the plaintiff only spent an average of 29 minutes a day on YouTube – too little for an addiction, so the argument goes.
What is at stake
The process is more than an isolated case. Around 1,500 similar procedures are waiting in the starting blocks. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits and force tech companies to make fundamental changes to their platforms. Meta shares were trading at $639.29 on the day of the testimony, a sign that investors are closely monitoring the outcome of the case.
The debate extends far beyond the courtroom. Social media bans for young people are being discussed in Germany. The question of whether and how platforms should be regulated is a concern for legislators around the world. The Los Angeles case could set standards that guide future regulations.
A precedent with a signal effect
The court will have to clarify this question as to whether Instagram and YouTube are actually addictive or whether other factors caused the plaintiff’s psychological problems. One thing is certain: the tech industry is under observation. CEOs in Silicon Valley are watching the process with excitement. The ruling will show whether platforms can be held more responsible in the future when it comes to protecting young users. For entrepreneurs, this means: The legal framework for digital business models could change fundamentally.
