After about a month of testimony from addiction experts, therapists, platform engineers and executives including Mark Zuckerberg, closing arguments started Thursday at the Spring Street Courthouse in Los Angeles in a civil trial focused on whether social media companies can be held liable for harms that the plaintiff says were linked to her early use. Jurors—12 of them—heard final statements and were set to begin deliberations Friday morning.
The case was brought by a plaintiff identified in court documents as KGM, whom her attorneys referred to as Kaley during the trial. Lawyers for Kaley, and lawyers representing the two remaining defendants—Meta and Google-owned YouTube—made their final arguments to the jurors, after TikTok and Snap were named in the lawsuit but settled before the trial began.
Lawyers for Kaley said the evidence showed the plaintiff developed an addiction to social media and that her early use exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. In his closing statement, attorney Mark Lanier presented jurors with a drawing meant to illustrate how targets are chosen, describing a herd of gazelles surrounded by a lion and saying the lions go after the ones perceived as weakest. Lanier said, “I think that’s what we got in this case,” and argued that internal documents from Meta and YouTube reflected an awareness of the potentially addictive nature of their platforms.
Lanier told jurors he did not dispute companies’ ability to earn money, but argued they had to do it responsibly when children are involved. He also said Kaley would have returned to the platforms even after experiencing cyberbullying because she viewed it as easier than being offline, an argument that built on her testimony from late February. As part of his closing, Lanier used drawings and illustrations to explain evidence and to help jurors visualize points, including bringing out a cupcake to illustrate a point related to the judge’s instructions.
Meta and YouTube’s attorneys sought to direct the jurors toward different interpretations of causation and responsibility. Paul Schmidt, who represented Meta, argued that Lanier’s framing depended on a counterfactual Kaley’s medical history and family relationships did not support. “The facts don’t allow that,” Schmidt said in closing, according to the transcript of the proceedings described by reporters, after outlining Kaley’s medical records and her familial circumstances.
Meta also emphasized what it said jurors were being asked to decide. A Meta spokesperson said Thursday the jury’s “only task” was to decide “if those struggles would have existed without Instagram” and said “Not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause.” Earlier in the trial, Meta’s legal representatives also said in a briefing with reporters that youth mental health struggles, including Kaley’s, could not be solved through litigation.
YouTube’s attorneys made additional arguments centered on how the platform differs from Instagram and what tools were available to users. Luis Li, who represented YouTube, told the jury that YouTube is not a social media platform and that its features are not addictive in the same way. Li also described YouTube’s comparison of its service to television, and he said that when Kaley and her mother first moved to file the case, they did not initially bring claims specifically against YouTube. He said Kaley was an adult when the suit was filed and attested under oath that she did not have claims specifically against the video platform.
Li argued that YouTube had set goals related to respecting users’ time, attention and wellbeing. He and Schmidt also described safety features and guardrails the platforms offered, and Li said Kaley and her family did not use YouTube Kids, safety mode, or other tools available to monitor and customize viewing.
Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl’s instructions shaped the legal questions the jurors must resolve. Jurors were told they must decide whether Meta and YouTube’s negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing Kaley’s harm, while also considering that it does not have to be the only factor. The cupcake exhibit Lanier displayed to jurors was part of that explanation, as he told them it had very little baking soda to cause it to rise but was still, in his description, a substantial factor in the baking process.
Because the case is civil, jurors did not need unanimity on the counts. Only nine of the 12 jurors have to agree on each count, and they were instructed to decide the case against each platform independently, with the judge advising them to treat it “as if it were a separate lawsuit.”
If the jury finds either or both platforms liable, it will also determine damages. Lanier told jurors to consider a question tied to the requested damages amount—“What is a lost childhood worth?” The trial is among several selected as bellwether cases, meaning its outcome could influence how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies are likely to proceed.