Instagram and YouTube Accused of Building ‘Addiction Machines’ as Landmark Trial Opens

A closely watched trial in California has put the world’s largest social media companies under scrutiny, with lawyers accusing Instagram and YouTube of intentionally designing their platforms to addict children and adolescents.

The case, which opened Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court, is expected to run for six weeks and could set a legal benchmark for thousands of similar lawsuits pending across the United States. At its center is a former minor identified only as K.G.M., referred to in court as Kaley G.M., who alleges that her mental health deteriorated as a result of compulsive use of social media platforms owned by Meta and Google.

In his opening statement, attorney Mark Lanier told jurors that the companies engineered their products with a clear objective: maximizing the amount of time young users spend online, regardless of the psychological consequences.

“These companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children,” Lanier said. “And they did it deliberately.”

Allegations of Intentional Design for Addiction

Lanier accused Meta, the parent company of Instagram, and Google-owned YouTube of failing to warn users — particularly minors — about the risks posed by features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, algorithmic recommendations, and constant notifications.

To underscore his point, Lanier used a visual display of children’s blocks arranged to spell out the words “Addicting,” “Brains,” and “Children,” framing the case as one focused on corporate responsibility rather than individual behavior.

“This case is about two of the richest corporations in history,” Lanier told the court, “who engineered addiction in children’s brains.”

As part of his argument, Lanier pointed to internal company communications, including a 2015 email in which Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg allegedly pressed employees to increase “time spent” on the platform by double-digit percentages to meet business goals. Lanier argued that such metrics directly incentivized addictive design choices.

Turning to YouTube, Lanier claimed the platform deliberately steered young users toward its main service rather than YouTube Kids, because advertising aimed at general audiences generated higher revenue.

He further accused the company of positioning YouTube as a form of “digital babysitting,” exploiting parents who relied on screens to occupy their children.

Defense Shifts Focus to Home Environment

Lawyers for Meta and YouTube rejected the accusation that their platforms were responsible for K.G.M.’s mental health struggles, arguing instead that her difficulties stemmed from long-standing issues within her family environment.

Meta attorney Paul Schmidt urged jurors to consider whether Instagram was truly a “substantial factor” in the plaintiff’s distress. He described K.G.M. as someone who faced significant turmoil at home, including alleged neglect, physical and verbal abuse, and bullying by her parents.

Schmidt presented records showing that K.G.M. had been exposed to domestic violence and had begun seeing therapists as early as age three. On a courtroom projector, he displayed excerpts from statements K.G.M. made about her upbringing, including claims that her mother screamed at her, insulted her intelligence, and made her feel suicidal.

“In a case about psychological distress, those experiences matter,” Schmidt told jurors, acknowledging the emotional weight of the testimony.

While expressing admiration for K.G.M.’s resilience, Schmidt maintained that the evidence would show her struggles predated her social media use and could not be attributed to Instagram alone.

Broader Legal Stakes for Big Tech

The trial is the first of its kind to reach a jury and is being closely monitored by legal experts, policymakers, and technology companies. Its outcome could influence how courts assess liability for algorithm-driven platforms and potentially shape future regulation.

Jurors are expected to hear testimony from expert witnesses, family members of children who died by suicide, and senior executives, including Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri, and YouTube chief executive Neal Mohan.

Former Meta employees who left the company and later raised concerns about the impact of social media on young users are also expected to testify.

Beyond the individual case, the proceedings unfold against a backdrop of growing legal pressure on Meta. A coalition of 29 state attorneys general recently asked a federal judge in California to impose sweeping changes on the company’s operations.

In a filing submitted Monday, the states requested an injunction that would require Meta to remove accounts belonging to users under 13, delete data collected from underage users, and dismantle algorithms and generative AI systems trained on that data.

An additional group of 18 states pursuing separate consumer protection claims asked the court to mandate time restrictions for young users, prohibit use during school hours and overnight, and disable features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and beauty-enhancing filters.

Companies Reject Liability Claims

Meta has argued that it has taken meaningful steps to improve safety, citing new “teen account” features introduced over the past two years, including content filtering for users under 16. State attorneys general dismissed those efforts as largely cosmetic, describing them as “public relations measures” offering minimal protection.

Both Meta and YouTube continue to assert that they are not legally responsible for content posted by third parties, citing federal protections that limit platform liability.

Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, and TikTok settled with K.G.M. last month and are no longer defendants in the case.

As the trial continues, families of children who believe social media played a role in their children’s deaths filled the courtroom gallery, watching closely as the legal battle over the role of technology in young lives begins to unfold.