- A jury in Los Angeles is analyzing whether Instagram and YouTube were deliberately designed to create addiction in minors.
- KGM, a user since the age of 6, is suing Meta and Alphabet for seriously damaging her mental health.
- The case could open the door to hundreds of similar lawsuits and change the civil liability of social media companies.
- While the trial continues in the US, Europe and countries like Spain and France are tightening controls on minors' access to networks.
A California court has opened an unprecedented legal case against Instagram and YouTube that could change how social media is understood worldwide. A jury will decide whether these platforms were deliberately designed to hook children and teenagers, creating a pattern of compulsive use akin to addiction.
The case revolves around the story of a 20-year-old woman, identified as KGM , who claims to have suffered a serious decline in her mental health after starting to use YouTube at just six years old and Instagram at eleven. At stake is not only her individual case, but also the possibility that this trial will open the door to hundreds of similar lawsuits against Big Tech and force profound legal changes in the United States and, by extension, in other regions such as Europe.
A pioneering case: from children's television to the courtroom
The lawsuit is being heard in the Superior Civil Court of Los Angeles County and names Meta (owner of Instagram and Facebook) and Alphabet (Google's parent company and owner of YouTube) as the main defendants. According to the documents filed, the young woman began watching YouTube videos as a child and created her Instagram profile at age 11, before later adding other apps such as Snapchat and TikTok.
The plaintiff's lawyers argue that the configuration of these platforms is not neutral , but rather designed to specifically target very young users. The lawsuit describes a network of features—automatic video playback, endless feed scrolling, constant notifications, extreme content personalization, and algorithm-based recommendation systems— aimed at keeping minors connected for as long as possible.
According to KGM's account, this intensive use of Instagram and YouTube ultimately led to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, and a need to regain control over her screen time . The legal team argues that the young woman was not simply a user with occasional difficulties, but rather the direct result of "deliberate design choices" that exploited the vulnerability of minors to increase attention and, consequently, advertising revenue.
The trial, which is expected to last at least six weeks, has already become a pilot test for more than a thousand cases proceeding in parallel in various US courts, many of them driven by families, school districts and state attorneys general who accuse social media of harming the mental health of children and teenagers.
Addictive design: the heart of the accusation
In his opening arguments, the young woman's lawyer, Mark Lanier, described Instagram and YouTube as "machines built to addict children's brains ." According to his argument, the platforms have consciously incorporated behavioral and neurobiological techniques similar to those used by slot machines or, in the past, by the tobacco industry.
The lawsuit details how YouTube's recommendation systems automatically play the next video before the user has time to decide whether to continue watching, while the algorithm precisely learns what type of content maximizes attention. Similarly, Instagram offers an "endless feed" of photos, videos, and stories that users can scroll endlessly, seeking reactions, comments, and continuous social validation.
The plaintiffs' lawyers emphasize that the debate is not so much about the specific content posted by users, which is largely protected by US law, but rather about the very architecture of the apps: how they are programmed to push young people to return again and again, making it difficult to simply "stop using it"—the argument that is often used.
Along these lines, experts supporting the prosecution have drawn parallels with the major tobacco trials of the 1990s, when it was proven that the companies were aware of the harmful effects of their products and yet promoted features that increased dependence . According to the plaintiffs, Instagram and YouTube followed a similar logic: the more time a minor spends online, the more data, the more ads, and the greater the profit.
If this approach succeeds, the case could circumvent the traditional shield of Section 230 and the liability protections that have for decades protected platforms from claims for content posted by third parties, opening up a completely new legal scenario for the technology industry.
Jury selection and the weight of Zuckerberg's figure
One of the most striking aspects of the process has been the long and meticulous selection of the jury , which lasted for days and in which opinions, often conflicting, about social networks and emblematic figures such as Mark Zuckerberg came to light.
During this phase, several prospective jurors acknowledged having a highly critical view of Meta and the origins of Facebook , recalling incidents such as the platform's use to rate the attractiveness of female university classmates or the Cambridge Analytica scandal, centered on the misuse of personal data. Others, however, openly declared themselves in favor of the company and stated they felt sympathy for its founder.
Meta's lawyers tried to remove those they considered "excessively hostile" to social media from the company, while the plaintiff's team did the same with those who tended to place sole responsibility on families and did not see a direct connection between the platform's design and mental health issues.
A twelve-person jury has been formed to hear the evidence and determine whether there was negligence in the design of the apps. It is expected that top executives from the companies will testify during the trial , including Mark Zuckerberg himself, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri, and YouTube CEO Neil Mohan.
The presence of these figures before the court could have a strong media and political impact, as this is the first time that Meta and Alphabet have defended the very design of their platforms before a jury in a case of this kind, beyond appearances before legislative committees or regulatory procedures.
Meta and Google's response: security, content, and responsibility
Meta and Google have flatly rejected the accusations and maintain that their products are not designed to cause harm , but rather include increasingly more digital protection and wellbeing features, especially designed for underage users.
Meta spokespeople have emphasized in public statements that the company “strongly disagrees” with the description in the lawsuit and that the evidence will demonstrate a consistent commitment to youth safety. They point to tools such as parental controls, time limits , reminders to pause, and options to filter or report problematic content.
Google, which owns YouTube, offers a similar line of defense: the accusations are dismissed as "simply false," and the company insists that it has been working for years on safer experiences for children and teenagers. The video platform emphasizes that it has created specific versions for minors, restricted certain features, and introduced systems to better moderate content and targeted advertising.
Both companies are also trying to focus the discussion on the fact that, ultimately, the content is generated by users , and that US law protects platforms from direct liability for what third parties publish. Their lawyers have tried, unsuccessfully so far, to prevent comparisons between their operations and those of addictive products like tobacco.
Meanwhile, both Meta and Alphabet emphasize that the well-being of minors depends on multiple factors —family environment, socioeconomic context, prior health, etc.—and that attributing all the blame to social media oversimplifies a complex reality. In court, the defense is attempting to present other aspects of KGM's life that could have contributed to the development of his psychological distress.
UNICEF, mental health and the debate on social media “addiction”
Beyond the strictly legal realm, the case has reignited the debate about whether or not one can speak of "addiction" to social media in clinical terms. International organizations and social entities warn of the risks, but qualify their language.
UNICEF Spain, for example, points out that the World Health Organization does not officially recognize social media addiction as a specific disorder. Instead, it refers to " problematic use " or "excessive use," categories that allow for an analysis of the impact on daily life without automatically equating it with other already classified addictions.
This does not mean, experts consulted point out, that the phenomenon is harmless. People who develop this problematic use can exhibit very intense symptoms: anxiety, physical symptoms, depression, and, in the most severe cases, risk of suicidal behavior . In adolescents, this is compounded by pressure regarding body image, constant comparison with others, and exposure to hurtful comments.
The lawsuit against Instagram and YouTube, although taking place in the United States, fits into a global trend of concern about the impact of social media on young people's mental health . Academic research, institutional reports, and testimonies from families have fueled the perception that the business model based on capturing attention clashes with the protection of children.
For advocates of stricter regulations, the KGM case illustrates how a design focused on maximizing online time spent online and a constant flow of stimuli can interfere with healthy emotional development, especially when first contact occurs at ages as young as six or eleven.
International reaction: age limits and new laws in Europe
While juries in Los Angeles hear arguments and expert testimony, other parts of the world are taking more direct steps to restrict minors' access to social media . Several countries have opted to set minimum ages and strengthen platform controls.
In Europe, the debate is particularly intense. Spain has put forward a proposal to limit the use of these apps by minors , an initiative that has even reached the Council of Ministers as part of a broader agenda on children's digital well-being. The idea is to tighten access conditions and give families more tools to monitor what their children do online.
France, for its part, has already passed a law prohibiting access to social media for children under 15 without parental consent , with the aim of having the new regulations fully implemented in the near future. The measure is based on growing evidence regarding the effects of screen time and exposure to harmful content.
Outside of Europe, countries like Australia have gone even further, requiring platforms to block or delete millions of accounts identified as belonging to minors, even though legislation sets a minimum age of 16 for using these services. These restrictions have sparked intense debate about privacy, freedom of expression, and the responsibility of technology companies.
In the UK, the government is also considering strengthening regulations to reduce screen time and limit potentially harmful content for teenagers, in line with the so-called "Online Safety" movement that is driving stricter regulations across Europe.
In this context, the case against Instagram and YouTube is being watched with particular interest from Europe: any change in the way the United States assumes responsibility for the platforms could influence how community regulations such as the Digital Services Regulation (DSA) or the data protection legislation (GDPR) are interpreted and applied .
A wave of litigation that goes beyond a single case
The Los Angeles case is not an isolated incident, but rather the vanguard of a wave of legal action against Big Tech. Thousands of lawsuits filed by parents, students, education officials, and attorneys general are piling up in state and federal courts across the United States, all sharing a common thread: attributing a key role to social media in the deterioration of children's mental health.
Alongside the KGM case, another significant trial has begun in New Mexico, accusing Meta of failing to adequately protect children and adolescents from sexual exploitation on its platforms and of profiting from this illicit activity. While the specific issues are different, both cases reflect the same trend of demanding greater accountability from companies.
At the federal level, a judge is coordinating more than 2.000 similar lawsuits against Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snap, and assessing the extent to which traditional liability protections remain valid when what is being questioned is not just the content, but the very design of the digital services.
Some of these companies have already opted to settle before going to trial. In the case of KGM, TikTok and Snapchat reached out-of-court settlements, the details of which have not been made public, leaving Meta and Alphabet as the main players in the ongoing proceedings in California.
For legal experts and regulators, what happens in this first trial will serve as a barometer for future litigation : if the jury finds negligence or intentional addictive design, other potential victims could be encouraged to file claims, and lawmakers would have further grounds for proposing sweeping reforms to the regulation of large platforms.
The case pitting a young user against two of the world's most powerful technology corporations has become a turning point in the debate surrounding social media, childhood, and mental health . The decision in a Los Angeles court transcends US borders and connects with restrictions already being considered or implemented in countries like Spain and other European partners, where the priority is increasingly focused on setting clear limits on the design of and access to platforms that, for years, have grown with virtually no regulatory constraints.
