Social Networks Confront Addiction Allegations Similar to Big Tobacco’s Past

For over a decade, tech giants like Facebook and Google have consistently denied allegations that they intentionally design products to foster addiction among children. However, in a groundbreaking trial, executives, including Meta Platforms Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg, will face these accusations in front of a jury. This trial is drawing parallels to the reckoning faced by Big Tobacco regarding consumer addiction three decades ago.

At the heart of this trial are Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and Google’s YouTube. Zuckerberg is expected to testify in Los Angeles as soon as next week. This case is pivotal, as it could influence thousands of similar lawsuits targeting TikTok Inc. and Snap Inc., which allege that these popular platforms were designed to profit at the expense of young people’s safety and mental health.

The companies firmly deny any wrongdoing, asserting that they have implemented various tools and resources to assist parents with their teens. However, a loss in this trial could compel them to alter how minors engage with social media and potentially lead to settlements amounting to billions—similar to the agreements that marred the tobacco and opioid industries.

This case, initiated by the Social Media Victims Law Center in Seattle, revolves around a 20-year-old woman from Chico, California. She claims to have been addicted to social media for over a decade, resulting in anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia. While she has reached confidential settlements with Snap and TikTok, these cases are part of two other significant trials scheduled for April and June. Meanwhile, Meta is also facing a jury trial in New Mexico, focusing on its safety record concerning children.

Previous legal challenges against social media firms primarily targeted harmful or disturbing content. Most of these cases have failed due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that broadly protects online platforms from liability for third-party content. This protection was intended to prevent unnecessary censorship and uphold freedom of speech, but it has faced criticism from some U.S. lawmakers as being overly broad and outdated.

In addiction-related cases, companies have successfully dismissed some allegations by invoking Section 230. However, lawyers have gained traction by arguing that the design and functionality of the products themselves have caused harm. They claim that the primary source of psychological distress for young users stems from the algorithms that prioritize engagement rather than the content shared by others. Techniques like infinite scrolling, where new content loads automatically, are cited as contributing factors.

The plaintiff in this case, referred to as K.G.M., is described as representative of many children in the U.S. who have suffered due to the deliberate design choices made by social media companies. Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center, emphasizes the widespread impact of these design decisions.

Teen Mental Health

While social media companies cannot solely rely on Section 230 for defense, they argue that there is insufficient evidence to support claims that their product designs harm users. At trial, Meta’s lawyers plan to present various studies, both internal and external, that refute the correlation between social media services and teen mental health issues. They will also highlight the positive aspects of social media, such as fostering connections among friends, family, and communities.

Meta’s legal team will contend that K.G.M.’s health issues are not a result of their products but rather stem from user-generated content beyond their control. Critics and researchers have long argued that social media negatively impacts mental health, particularly among youth. In response, Australia recently banned social media for children under 16, with several European countries considering similar measures. Even Meta’s internal research, revealed by a whistleblower in 2021, indicated challenges in managing misinformation and potential negative effects of Instagram on teens, especially girls.

In light of these concerns, Meta has implemented changes to how young users access its services, including creating teen accounts with content limitations and parental oversight. In a January blog post, Meta stated that attributing teen mental health struggles solely to social media companies oversimplifies a complex issue.

Meta asserts that the claims in the lawsuits do not reflect reality, emphasizing their commitment to addressing tough questions and taking responsible actions. YouTube spokesperson José Castañeda echoed this sentiment, stating that providing a safer experience for young users has always been a priority.

Zuckerberg, Mohan

The trial, initially set to begin in late January, was postponed due to an unexpected illness affecting one of the defense’s lead lawyers. A jury of six women and six men was selected last week, with opening arguments and testimonies scheduled to commence Monday and potentially extend through March.

Instagram head Adam Mosseri is expected to testify in the first week, followed by Zuckerberg, while YouTube CEO Neal Mohan will also take the stand. Jurors will hear from expert witnesses in child psychology and related fields.

The outcomes of these trials could pave the way for settlement discussions, revealing the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments presented and ultimately determining the value of remaining cases. In addition to the Los Angeles trials, social media companies are facing consumer protection lawsuits from approximately three dozen state attorneys general and public nuisance suits from over 1,000 public school districts across the U.S. These cases, expected to go to trial later this year, could expose tech giants to billions in damages and necessitate changes in how their platforms operate.

“The simple fact that a social media company is going to have to stand trial before a jury and account for its design decisions is unprecedented in American jurisprudence,” Bergman stated. “This has never happened before.”

Photo: (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

Copyright 2026 Bloomberg.

Topics
Claims

For over a decade, tech giants like Facebook and Google have consistently denied allegations that they intentionally design products to foster addiction among children. However, in a groundbreaking trial, executives, including Meta Platforms Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg, will face these accusations in front of a jury. This trial is drawing parallels to the reckoning faced by Big Tobacco regarding consumer addiction three decades ago.

At the heart of this trial are Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and Google’s YouTube. Zuckerberg is expected to testify in Los Angeles as soon as next week. This case is pivotal, as it could influence thousands of similar lawsuits targeting TikTok Inc. and Snap Inc., which allege that these popular platforms were designed to profit at the expense of young people’s safety and mental health.

The companies firmly deny any wrongdoing, asserting that they have implemented various tools and resources to assist parents with their teens. However, a loss in this trial could compel them to alter how minors engage with social media and potentially lead to settlements amounting to billions—similar to the agreements that marred the tobacco and opioid industries.

This case, initiated by the Social Media Victims Law Center in Seattle, revolves around a 20-year-old woman from Chico, California. She claims to have been addicted to social media for over a decade, resulting in anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia. While she has reached confidential settlements with Snap and TikTok, these cases are part of two other significant trials scheduled for April and June. Meanwhile, Meta is also facing a jury trial in New Mexico, focusing on its safety record concerning children.

Previous legal challenges against social media firms primarily targeted harmful or disturbing content. Most of these cases have failed due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that broadly protects online platforms from liability for third-party content. This protection was intended to prevent unnecessary censorship and uphold freedom of speech, but it has faced criticism from some U.S. lawmakers as being overly broad and outdated.

In addiction-related cases, companies have successfully dismissed some allegations by invoking Section 230. However, lawyers have gained traction by arguing that the design and functionality of the products themselves have caused harm. They claim that the primary source of psychological distress for young users stems from the algorithms that prioritize engagement rather than the content shared by others. Techniques like infinite scrolling, where new content loads automatically, are cited as contributing factors.

The plaintiff in this case, referred to as K.G.M., is described as representative of many children in the U.S. who have suffered due to the deliberate design choices made by social media companies. Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center, emphasizes the widespread impact of these design decisions.

Teen Mental Health

While social media companies cannot solely rely on Section 230 for defense, they argue that there is insufficient evidence to support claims that their product designs harm users. At trial, Meta’s lawyers plan to present various studies, both internal and external, that refute the correlation between social media services and teen mental health issues. They will also highlight the positive aspects of social media, such as fostering connections among friends, family, and communities.

Meta’s legal team will contend that K.G.M.’s health issues are not a result of their products but rather stem from user-generated content beyond their control. Critics and researchers have long argued that social media negatively impacts mental health, particularly among youth. In response, Australia recently banned social media for children under 16, with several European countries considering similar measures. Even Meta’s internal research, revealed by a whistleblower in 2021, indicated challenges in managing misinformation and potential negative effects of Instagram on teens, especially girls.

In light of these concerns, Meta has implemented changes to how young users access its services, including creating teen accounts with content limitations and parental oversight. In a January blog post, Meta stated that attributing teen mental health struggles solely to social media companies oversimplifies a complex issue.

Meta asserts that the claims in the lawsuits do not reflect reality, emphasizing their commitment to addressing tough questions and taking responsible actions. YouTube spokesperson José Castañeda echoed this sentiment, stating that providing a safer experience for young users has always been a priority.

Zuckerberg, Mohan

The trial, initially set to begin in late January, was postponed due to an unexpected illness affecting one of the defense’s lead lawyers. A jury of six women and six men was selected last week, with opening arguments and testimonies scheduled to commence Monday and potentially extend through March.

Instagram head Adam Mosseri is expected to testify in the first week, followed by Zuckerberg, while YouTube CEO Neal Mohan will also take the stand. Jurors will hear from expert witnesses in child psychology and related fields.

The outcomes of these trials could pave the way for settlement discussions, revealing the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments presented and ultimately determining the value of remaining cases. In addition to the Los Angeles trials, social media companies are facing consumer protection lawsuits from approximately three dozen state attorneys general and public nuisance suits from over 1,000 public school districts across the U.S. These cases, expected to go to trial later this year, could expose tech giants to billions in damages and necessitate changes in how their platforms operate.

“The simple fact that a social media company is going to have to stand trial before a jury and account for its design decisions is unprecedented in American jurisprudence,” Bergman stated. “This has never happened before.”

Photo: (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

Copyright 2026 Bloomberg.

Topics
Claims