Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in Los Angeles Superior Court on February 18 as part of a landmark civil lawsuit accusing social media companies of building their platforms to induce addiction in young users, thereby harming their mental health.

The case, JCCP 5255, revolves around a 20-year-old woman referred to in legal documents as KGM and her mother, Karen. They claim that KGM began using social media at age 10, leading to her "dangerous dependence on [the social media company's products], accompanied by anxiety, depression, self-harm, and body dysmorphic phobia."

They also claimed that KGM had experienced bullying and sexual extortion on Instagram, and that the company did nothing about it for two weeks until friends and family began repeatedly reporting the infringing accounts.

This lawsuit foreshadows thousands more lawsuits filed by users or on their behalf, as well as similar allegations against social media platforms by school districts and state governments across the country.

At a hearing on February 18, the plaintiffs' lawyers questioned Zuckerberg about a 2015 email that appeared to call for increased user engagement on Instagram. However, according to CNBC, the CEO claimed that pushing for increased user engagement was not one of the company's goals.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the plaintiffs' lawyers also inquired about the number of children under 13 using Instagram. Attorney Mark Lanier subsequently presented an internal document from 2015 that estimated 4 million users were under the age of 13.

This Case Has Significant Implications for Social Media Companies

If Meta and Google's YouTube (also named as a defendant) lose, they could face massive class-action lawsuits. What makes this case unique is that it doesn't target the content the tech companies create, but rather focuses on the design of their services and whether those services are designed to make teenagers addicted.

This is a crucial distinction, as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects companies from liability for content posted online by their users.

The current lawsuit was initially filed in 2023, with plaintiffs including Meta, Snap, TikTok, and YouTube, but Snap and TikTok later settled for undisclosed amounts.

Meta stated in a press release, "We strongly oppose these allegations and believe the evidence will demonstrate our long-standing commitment to supporting young people."

The company added, "For over a decade, we have listened to parents, collaborated with experts and law enforcement, and conducted in-depth research to understand what matters most. We use these insights to make meaningful changes—such as launching teen accounts with built-in protections and providing parents with tools to manage their children's usage experience."

Meta also claims that KGM faced "many significant and difficult challenges" long before it began using social media.

YouTube's chief lawyer, Louis Lee, issued a statement following earlier testimony, saying, "The facts we presented in court today clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff is not addicted to YouTube, nor has she ever been. She herself, her father, and her doctor have all testified to this. There is no such diagnosis in her medical records, and data proves that she uses the features her lawyers claim are addictive for no more than one minute per day."

Google spokesperson José Castañeda stated in a separate statement that YouTube has consistently worked with teens, mental health, and parenting experts to build "services and policies that provide age-appropriate experiences for young people and strong parental controls. The allegations in these complaints are simply unfounded."

App Design Becomes the Focus

The key issue in the lawsuit is whether social media platforms intentionally design their services to encourage repetitive use by teenagers.

According to Erin S. Calipari, director of the Vanderbilt University Centre for Addiction Studies, part of the reason is that users may unconsciously pick up their phones and end up scrolling for hours.

"That's exactly where the appeal of these apps lies. The information and patterns they present, we know, tend to lead to habitual behavior," she said.

“They’re designed to create that sense of engagement. And that engagement really does come in some…in cases of serious illnesses that disrupt people’s lives. So I think it’s in these situations that these conversations become so crucial,” Calipari added.

For years, experts have warned that social media use can lead to certain mental health problems. In 2023, the American Psychological Association released a consultation report stating that while social media itself is neither good nor bad, teenagers should not use the technology in ways that could interfere with sleep or physical activity.

In 2024, then-Surgeon General Vivek H. Murty, in an op-ed in The New York Times, stated that social media websites should be labeled with the Surgeon General's warning, stating that these sites are associated with “serious mental health hazards to teenagers.”

Megan Duncan, a professor at Virginia Tech's School of Journalism and Communication, stated that the key to this case may lie in who knew what and when: "Did Facebook and Google intentionally design their products in a way that...enhanced their profits knowing that their product design would harm users?"

For years, social media platforms have implemented a series of measures aimed at giving parents greater control over the content teenagers see and helping them reduce overall usage, including certain parental controls and restrictions on which teenage accounts can message users.

In any case, winning this case is crucial for both Meta and Google, as a loss would make it much harder for them to win similar cases in the future.

Eric Tully, a professor at Columbia Law School, told the media: "If you lose a factual lawsuit, and the ruling shows that 'in this case, the content you posted either makes teenage users addicted or manipulates them,' then that ruling could be repeatedly used against you."

However, a victory does not necessarily guarantee that Meta and Google are completely unscathed.

“It would be very beneficial for Meta to fight hard in these early cases, because if they get some rulings that are unfavorable to them, those rulings could be used further,” Tali added.