The first day of testimony in Los Angeles County Superior Court opened Monday with competing accounts of whether major social media platforms deliberately designed features to hook children and worsen their mental health. The plaintiffs’ side is seeking to hold Meta and Google’s YouTube responsible for harms they say children experience when using the platforms, while the defendants are contesting both causation and the characterization of addiction.
In opening statements, the plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Lanier urged jurors to treat the case as a straightforward question of whether the companies engineered addictive engagement for minors. Lanier said the dispute is “easy as ABC,” which he described as standing for “addicting the brains of children.” He told jurors that Meta and YouTube are “two of the richest corporations in history” and said they “engineered addiction in children’s brains,” arguing that internal materials show a different posture than the companies’ public statements about child protections.
Lanier presented jurors with what he said were internal emails, documents and studies from Meta and YouTube and from Google, including a study Meta conducted called “Project Myst.” According to Lanier, the company surveyed 1,000 teens and their parents about their social media use and found that children who experienced “adverse events” such as trauma and stress were particularly vulnerable for addiction, and that parental supervision and controls “made little impact.” He also showed internal documents from Google that compared some products to a casino, and internal Meta communications in which a person described Instagram as “like a drug” and said employees were “basically pushers.”
At the center of the Los Angeles case is a plaintiff identified only by the initials KGM, whose case the trial will use as a bellwether for both sides’ arguments in similar lawsuits. Lanier said the outcome could determine how thousands of other cases against social media companies play out. He also told jurors that KGM was a minor when she says she became addicted to social media and that the alleged addiction contributed to deteriorating mental health, including depression and suicidal thoughts.
During the opening, KGM made a brief appearance after a break in Lanier’s presentation and will return later to testify. Lanier spent time describing her childhood, including what he said her personality was like before she began using social media, and he said her mother described her as a “creative spark” when she was young. Lanier said KGM started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9 and, before graduating elementary school, had posted 284 videos on YouTube.
Lanier told jurors that even though Meta and YouTube publicly say they work to protect children and implement safeguards, their internal documents reflect what he portrayed as explicit targeting of young children. He also drew comparisons between social media companies and tobacco firms, pointing to internal Meta communications that he said showed concern about the potential harm platforms can have on children and teens. Lanier said, “For a teenager, social validation is survival,” and argued the defendants “engineered a feature that caters to a minor’s craving for social validation,” including “like” buttons and similar features.
Meta’s defense, delivered by Paul Schmidt, framed the dispute around whether social media was a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles. Schmidt said the core question in the case is whether the platforms were a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health issues, and he spent much of his time discussing her health records, including difficult circumstances in her childhood such as emotional abuse, body image issues and bullying. He also argued that KGM’s case reflects broader personal and relational factors rather than a direct line from platform use to addiction.
Schmidt presented a clip from a video deposition from one of KGM’s mental health providers, Dr. Thomas Suberman, who said social media was “not the throughline of what I recall being her main issues.” In Schmidt’s presentation, Suberman’s testimony and what Schmidt characterized as KGM’s own statements in text messages and testimony pointed to a volatile home life, including a particularly troubled relationship with her mother. Schmidt acknowledged that many mental health professionals believe social media addiction can exist, but said three of KGM’s providers—who all believe in addiction in general—had never diagnosed her with it and had not treated her for it.
Schmidt emphasized that the jury’s task was not to determine whether social media is good or bad, what content teens see, or whether jurors like or dislike Meta, but instead to decide whether social media played a substantial role in KGM’s mental health struggles. He positioned the case as one case among many in a larger set of lawsuits, arguing for jurors to focus on the evidence tied to the plaintiff’s claim.
Outside the courtroom, Sacha Haworth, executive director of the nonprofit Tech Oversight Project, described the Los Angeles trial as “only the first case,” saying there are hundreds of other parents and school districts involved in social media addiction trials “that start today,” and that new families continue to come forward. Haworth said jurors are not being asked to stop using Facebook, Instagram, YouTube or other forms of social media during the trial, which is expected to last about eight weeks, but Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl said jurors should not make changes to their interaction with the platforms, including changing settings or creating new accounts.
Kuhl also told jurors they should decide the liability of Meta and YouTube independently when they deliberate. As the trial proceeds, the plaintiffs’ team is expected to lean on internal communications and study findings to support a deliberate-design theory of addiction, while the defense is expected to focus on KGM’s documented mental health history and on medical-provider testimony that characterizes social media’s role differently.
The Los Angeles trial is part of a wider legal push this year to assign responsibility to social media companies for alleged harms to children’s mental well-being. In New Mexico, opening statements began Monday as well in a trial focused on allegations that Meta and its platforms failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation after an undercover investigation, with New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez having sued Meta and Zuckerberg earlier in the matter. A separate bellwether trial is also set to begin in June in Oakland, California, aimed at school districts suing social media companies over harms to children, and multiple state attorneys general have also filed lawsuits alleging design choices that they say addict children.
In addition to U.S. litigation, lawmakers in other countries have moved to restrict social media for children. In January, French lawmakers approved a bill banning social media for children under 15 that is set to take effect at the start of the next school year in September, and Australia has banned platform use for children under 16. The tech companies deny that their products deliberately harm children, citing safeguards they say they have added over the years and arguing they are not liable for content posted by third parties.
Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the Los Angeles trial, which is projected to run six to eight weeks. Legal experts have drawn parallels to the Big Tobacco trials that preceded a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restricting marketing targeting minors. Ortutay reported from Oakland, California, and Associated Press Writer Morgan Lee in Santa Fe, New Mexico, contributed to the report.