A major legal battle is now underway as parents, school districts, and states take social media companies to court, claiming their platforms are addictive to children. The first of these cases began jury selection in late January in Los Angeles, marking the start of what could become one of the most consequential legal challenges the tech industry has ever faced. Supporters compare it to the lawsuits against tobacco companies decades ago. Critics see it as a questionable attempt to shift parental responsibility onto corporations while seeking massive financial payouts.
The trial underway in California centers on a young woman identified as K.G.M., who claims she became addicted to social media as a minor and suffered emotional and physical harm. Her case is the first to go to trial among thousands of similar lawsuits grouped together in a coordinated legal proceeding involving more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including families and school districts.
Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, and Google, which owns YouTube, remain the primary defendants in this first trial. TikTok and Snap both settled with the plaintiff just days before the trial began, avoiding public courtroom proceedings. The terms of those settlements have not been disclosed.
Additional trials are scheduled this year in New Mexico, California federal court, and other jurisdictions. State attorneys general and city governments, including New York City, have also filed separate lawsuits alleging that social media platforms harm children’s mental health.
Companies Sued or Settled
The lawsuits target the biggest names in social media. Meta and Google are currently facing trial. TikTok and Snap have settled the first case but remain defendants in dozens of others still moving through state and federal courts.
Other cases involve claims against Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat collectively. Executives expected or ordered to testify include Mark Zuckerberg, Adam Mosseri, and potentially Sundar Pichai or YouTube CEO Neal Mohan.
Addiction Claims
The core argument is that social media companies intentionally designed their products to be addictive, especially for children. Plaintiffs point to features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, and algorithmic recommendations that continuously feed users content without natural stopping points.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue these features borrow techniques from gambling and tobacco industries, claiming companies understood that hooking users at a young age would create lifelong customers. The lawsuits allege that these designs led to anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self harm, and other mental health problems.
Evidence and Expert Testimony
Plaintiffs plan to present internal company documents and testimony from experts in psychology, neuroscience, and online harm. Some unsealed documents reportedly show employees describing their own products as addictive, with one Instagram employee allegedly calling the app a drug.
Experts supporting the lawsuits argue that social media engagement triggers dopamine responses in the brain, reinforcing compulsive use patterns. They claim children are especially vulnerable because their brains are still developing.
Defense attorneys counter that there is no clinical or legal definition of social media addiction and that causation is extremely difficult to prove. They argue that content choices and user behavior, not product design, drive outcomes.
How Much Money Is at Stake
The financial exposure could be enormous. Meta has warned investors that potential damages across these cases could reach the high tens of billions of dollars. Plaintiffs are seeking both monetary damages and court ordered changes to how social media platforms are designed.
Even companies that have settled individual cases could face additional liability as more trials proceed. Appeals are expected regardless of trial outcomes.
Supporters of the lawsuits argue the cases are long overdue and say transparency will expose how social media companies prioritized profit over children’s well being. Advocacy groups believe internal documents will reveal knowledge of harm that was ignored for years.
Critics argue the lawsuits stretch the idea of addiction beyond reason. Dopamine responses are not unique to social media. They occur with video games, sports, music, movies, and even reading good books. Online companies are built to create engaging content that brings users back. That does not automatically make their products defective.
There is also a broader responsibility question. Parents buy smartphones, allow social media access, and control screen time. Parents also give children caffeinated sodas, energy drinks, and sugary foods, all of which are known to be habit forming. Suing social media companies for addiction while ignoring parental choices strikes many as misplaced accountability.
There is little doubt that excessive social media use can be unhealthy for children. The issue is real and worth addressing. But critics argue these lawsuits are less about solving the problem and more about extracting money from deep pocketed companies.
The courts are now being asked to decide whether engagement driven design is inherently harmful or simply the nature of modern digital products. Even if the cases lack strong legal merit, they may still succeed due to public sentiment, political pressure, and jury sympathy.
In the end, the trials may reshape social media regulation regardless of verdicts. But they also raise an uncomfortable question. Are these lawsuits about protecting children, or are they about shifting responsibility away from parents and toward the most profitable companies in the digital age?
