Attorneys for YouTube and Meta Platforms Inc. faced a jury this week in a high-stakes civil trial in Los Angeles that could redefine the legal responsibilities of Silicon Valley giants.
On Tuesday, YouTube’s legal team argued that the platform is neither “social media” nor “addictive,” seeking to distance the Google-owned video giant from allegations that it engineered a mental health crisis among American youth. Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri later testified that social media was not “clinically addictive.”
The trial centers on Kaley G.M., a 20-year-old woman who alleges that compulsive use of YouTube and Instagram during her childhood led to severe psychological harm. The case is being closely watched as a bellwether for thousands of similar lawsuits filed by families, school districts, and state attorneys general who liken the tech industry’s tactics to those of Big Tobacco.
Defense attorney Luis Li, representing YouTube, flatly rejected the plaintiff’s characterization of the platform. “It’s not social media addiction when it’s not social media and it’s not addiction,” Li told the 12-member jury.
Li argued that YouTube functions more like a modern television service than a social network, noting that more people now watch the platform on TV screens than on mobile devices. He contended that users return to YouTube because of “quality content” and educational value, rather than manipulative algorithms. According to the defense, even the plaintiff’s own father and doctors previously stated she was not addicted to the video platform.
The defense’s narrative stands in stark contrast to the picture painted on Monday by the plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier. Using children’s alphabet blocks to spell out “Addicting,” “Brains,” and “Children,” Lanier accused the tech giants of intentionally designing “addiction machines” to maximize profits.
Lanier presented internal documents to the court, including a 2015 email from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg demanding a 12% increase in user time-spent to meet business goals. He further alleged that YouTube targeted young users on its main site, rather than its YouTube Kids alternative, because it could charge advertisers higher premiums.
Meta’s defense team took a different tack, pivotally shifting the focus from software design to the plaintiff’s personal life. Attorney Paul Schmidt argued that Kaley G.M.’s mental health struggles were rooted in a history of “family turmoil,” citing records of domestic violence and therapy sessions that began when she was three years old.
“In a case that’s about psychological distress, that is what you have to consider,” Schmidt told jurors, suggesting that the platforms were not a “substantial factor” in her trauma.
While Snapchat and TikTok settled with the plaintiff last month, YouTube and Meta remain the primary targets in a six-week trial that will feature testimony from top executives, including Zuckerberg and YouTube CEO Neal Mohan.
The outcome may set the benchmark for damages in a tidal wave of litigation. Simultaneously, 29 state attorneys general are pushing for federal injunctions that would force Meta to disable “addictive” features like infinite scroll and autoplay, signaling that regardless of this jury’s verdict, the era of unregulated social media design may be coming to an end.
