A trial opened on Tuesday, January 27 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, intended to lead the way on the topic of social media addiction and its effects on the mental health of so-called “digital natives”. The lawsuit arises from the complaint of a 19-year-old girl, known by the acronym KGM, who attributes the Big Tech in question as the prime mover of her depression and suicidal thoughts.
Specifically, Meta, owner of Instagram and Facebook, ByteDance, owner of TikTok, and Google, owner of YouTube, end up in the crosshairs, accused of having deliberately designed platforms that create addiction through algorithms, notifications and attractive layouts, with characteristics similar to “behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the tobacco industry, aimed at maximizing the involvement of young people to increase advertising revenues”, we read in the lawsuit. A fourth company previously charged, Snap, owned by CEO Evan Spiegel, closed the case after reaching a settlement with the plaintiff on January 20, paying an undisclosed sum.
The controversy also affects section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects companies: they are not responsible for the contents published, but those who publish them are. But the dispute is not about the contents but about the very structure of the platforms, designed to create addiction.
According to KGM’s lawyer, Matthew Bergman, as stated to the BBC, it would be the first time that social media companies answer for the effects caused by their products in front of a jury. “Unfortunately, there are too many kids in the US, UK and around the world suffering like KGM because of dangerous, addictive algorithms,” KGM’s defender said. Again, the lawsuit states that “Plaintiffs are not just the collateral damage of Defendants’ products. They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended recipients of the harmful features that have pushed them into a self-destructive cycle.”
The companies deny the accusations. Meta, in particular, reiterated that adolescent mental health is a “complex and multifaceted” issue and that attributing responsibility to social media would constitute an oversimplification that does not take into account the “numerous stressors that influence today’s youth, such as school pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse”. In support of their position – they claim their commitment to promoting digital well-being and guides on the use of various security tools – the three companies have not failed to list the projects carried out in recent years. He remembers the workshop Screen Smartorganized by Meta in Los Angeles in 2024 to teach parents how to keep their teenagers safe online, hosted by dozens of schools. Furthermore, the events financed by TikTok with the slogan “Create with kindness”, as well as, under Google, the partnerships with Girl Scouts with modules focusing on password security, online etiquette and the importance of digital privacy.
But according to Julie Scelfo, founder of Mothers Against Media Addictionan organization that campaigns for phone-free schools, major corporations are exerting every possible influence to protect their image. Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University (California), told the BBC that while losing these lawsuits could pose a threat to social media companies, plaintiffs could face difficulties in proving that the physical harm was attributable to the owners of the platforms. “The fact that the plaintiffs were able to sell this idea opened the door to a whole host of new legal questions that the law wasn’t really designed to answer,” Goldman said, in a domino effect started by a very young girl and then brought on by others as well.
The trial marks the start of a new series of lawsuits expected throughout the year in the United States. In recent months, a dozen American states have sued Meta after claiming that the company had misled public opinion about the effects that social media can have on Generation alpha. Some countries, such as Australia, have introduced or are considering introducing restrictions on the use of social media for minors. It seems like the beginning of a season like that of the major trials of tobacco companies for the damage of smoking to health. The Los Angeles trial will show the way. But in the meantime a paradigm seems to be changing: not necessarily banning social media for kids but making social media suitable for kids.
