A Los Angeles jury is currently hearing a case that could set an important precedent regarding the responsibility of social media companies for potential harm to young users. The trial centers on claims that Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube are addictive and have contributed to mental health issues among teenagers and children.
The plaintiff in the case is a 20-year-old woman from California who alleges that her long-term use of these platforms led to anxiety, depression, and body image problems. She argues that Instagram and YouTube were intentionally designed to be addictive, particularly for younger users, with the aim of increasing engagement and advertising revenue.
Meta and Google deny their platforms are harmful to young people’s mental health. However, research continues to raise concerns about possible negative effects.
Glenn Cohen, deputy dean at Harvard Law School and faculty director at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, discussed the significance of this case. “This is a case that initially was against Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat. It’s currently against Meta and Google; Snapchat and TikTok settled out of court. It’s a so-called bellwether trial,” Cohen said. He explained that there are around 1,600 related cases being handled together in multidistrict litigation. “This is one of the very first cases where we saw Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg take the stand, and so this is a pretty unprecedented sort of thing.”
One key issue in the lawsuit is whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a law from 1996—protects online platforms from liability over user-generated content. The court previously ruled against Meta on this point during earlier proceedings.
Cohen noted that what sets this lawsuit apart is its focus on product design rather than content: “What’s novel about this case is that the plaintiffs frame their claim as having nothing to do with content. They claim this is about design and functionality… So, they argue, a court can adjudicate liability for the design without running afoul of either Section 230 or facing First Amendment questions about content regulation.”
He added that questions remain about whether any alleged harms resulted directly from platform design choices or other factors such as specific content viewed by users. The effectiveness of warnings provided by companies like Meta will also be examined.
Cohen suggested there could be broader implications if plaintiffs prevail: “I think it’s going to be quite an important case in part because it’s a theory that has a serious consequence for Meta and Google should they lose.” He indicated an appeal would likely follow any decision against Meta or Google.
The outcome may influence future regulation both in the United States and abroad. Some countries already regulate social media more strictly than the U.S., focusing on measures such as age verification systems for younger users.
According to Cohen: “Zuckerberg, in his testimony, says that phone makers bear more responsibility… having a reliable way to verify a young user’s age without a driver’s license would be… ‘a very wise and simple way’ to do it.” This position suggests tech companies may argue for regulation targeting device manufacturers instead of social media providers themselves.
The trial continues amid ongoing debate over how best to protect minors online while balancing free speech concerns under existing laws.
