Lawyers for a 20-year-old woman and social media giants Meta and YouTube made final appeals to a Los Angeles jury Thursday, arguing over whether platforms should be liable for harms to children. The bellwether trial could impact thousands of similar lawsuits.
The plaintiff, identified as KGM in court documents or Kaley during the trial, alleges her early use of social media addicted her and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. After about a month of testimony from addiction experts, therapists, platform engineers and executives — including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg — the jury heard closing arguments before beginning deliberations Friday morning.
Mark Lanier, representing Kaley, began his closing statement by presenting an image of a herd of gazelles surrounded by a lion. “The lions never go after the strongest or boldest gazelles,” he said, “but rather target the ones they think are weakest. I think that’s what we got in this case.”
Lanier argued that Meta and YouTube targeted vulnerable users like Kaley. He pointed to several internal documents from the companies that he said showed an internal understanding of the platforms’ addictive nature. “I don’t naysay the opportunity to make money, but when you’re making money off of kids, you have to do it responsibly,” he told jurors.
Both defendants and the plaintiff have noted Kaley’s turbulent home life. Her attorneys say she was preyed upon as a vulnerable user, while attorneys for Meta and YouTube argue she turned to their platforms as a coping mechanism for pre-existing mental health struggles.
Meta attorneys emphasized that Kaley faced significant challenges before ever using social media. “The jury’s only task,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement Thursday, “is to decide if those struggles would have existed without Instagram. Not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause.”
Throughout the trial, Meta argued that Kaley’s mental health issues predated her platform use. In his closing, Meta attorney Paul Schmidt said the plaintiff’s counsel was trying to argue that if Kaley had never used Instagram, her other mental health struggles would be different. “The facts don’t allow that,” Schmidt said, after outlining Kaley’s medical records and troubled familial relationships.
YouTube’s attorney, Luis Li, emphasized that when Kaley and her mother filed the lawsuit, they originally did not bring any claims against YouTube. Kaley, by then an adult, attested under oath that she had no claims specifically against the video platform. Li also stressed that YouTube is not a social media service and lacks the social validation features that make other platforms addictive. He compared YouTube to television, noting it doesn’t have the same engagement mechanisms as Instagram.
Li added that YouTube had created goals years ago related to respecting users’ time, attention and overall wellbeing. Both he and Schmidt outlined specific safety features and guardrails available on their platforms, noting that Kaley and her family did not use YouTube Kids, its safety mode or other available tools.
Lanier used illustrations throughout the trial to help jurors visualize testimony. In closing, he brought out a cupcake to explain the jury instructions. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl had told jurors they must decide if Meta and YouTube’s negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing Kaley’s harm — but it did not have to be the only factor. The cupcake, with very little baking soda, was still a substantial factor in the baking process, Lanier said.
Since the case is civil, only nine of the 12 jurors must agree on each count. They will decide the case against each platform independently, as if it were a separate lawsuit. If they find either or both platforms liable, they will also decide the amount of damages. Lanier advised them to consider one question: “What is a lost childhood worth?”
The outcome of this bellwether trial could set a precedent for how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies are likely to proceed.