In a high-stakes civil trial unfolding in Los Angeles Superior Court, legal teams for Google’s YouTube pushed back on allegations that the platform functions as addictive social media and harms children’s mental health, arguing YouTube is fundamentally different from platforms like Instagram or TikTok and does not cause addiction, even as plaintiff attorneys maintain the tech giants engineered features that ensnare young users in compulsive, damaging use. Attorneys for YouTube told jurors the video service is a video-streaming platform rather than social media — and pointed to testimony and data suggesting a 19-year-old plaintiff’s average YouTube use was modest — while expert witnesses for the plaintiffs compared social media to addictive substances. The broader case, brought by multiple families and school districts, could set new legal precedent on corporate responsibility for alleged harms tied to design choices. Key figures from Meta, including Instagram leadership, have been called to testify on whether design choices constitute addiction-fostering features, and this trial is being closely watched as a potential bellwether for dozens of similar lawsuits nationwide.
Sources
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/in-landmark-trial-youtube-says-its-not-social-media-doesnt-addict-children-5984045
https://www.courthousenews.com/its-not-an-addiction-youtube-pushes-back-in-landmark-social-media-trial/
https://abc7.com/post/landmark-trial-accusing-social-media-companies-addicting-children-platforms-begins/18573924
Key Takeaways
• YouTube’s legal team is asserting that the platform is not social media and therefore cannot be held responsible for causing addiction among young users.
• Plaintiffs allege that tech giants’ platforms use design features that foster compulsive use and contribute to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues in children.
• The outcome of this trial could influence hundreds of related lawsuits and shape how tech companies are legally accountable for the mental health impacts of their platforms.
In-Depth
In a closely watched legal battle in Los Angeles, the way the courts view social media’s role in shaping youth behavior and mental health is being tested in unprecedented detail, with tech giant Google’s YouTube at the center of contention. During the second day of the trial, attorneys for YouTube — a subsidiary of Google — made clear that they do not consider the platform to be social media in the conventional sense, and therefore argue it should not be held liable for what plaintiffs describe as addictive behavior and associated mental health harms suffered by a young woman. Attorneys emphasized differences between YouTube’s video-centric model and traditional social networks, insisting that consumption of content does not equate to the interactive, validation-driven dynamics characteristic of platforms like Instagram.
The plaintiff, identified by the initials “K.G.M.” and described as a 19-year-old woman, alleges severe psychological harm linked to prolonged engagement with social media during her youth. Plaintiff attorneys have cast this and similar cases as efforts to hold powerful technology firms accountable for business practices they argue intentionally prioritize maximizing engagement over the mental well-being of children and teenagers. Expert witnesses presented by the plaintiffs compared addictive design elements on social media to substances that hijack neurological reward pathways, asserting that features such as endless feeds and algorithmic recommendations are intended to keep young users hooked.
Beyond YouTube, other major platforms remain under scrutiny in the litigation, with representatives from Meta — including leadership from Instagram — called to testify on their product designs’ impact on youth. The plaintiffs’ legal strategy draws parallels to historic litigation against tobacco companies, seeking to demonstrate that corporations knew or should have known about harmful impacts yet continued practices that allegedly foster dependency. Meanwhile, defense arguments have at times shifted blame toward individual circumstances in plaintiffs’ lives, suggesting that broader factors beyond platform design better explain mental health struggles.
As opening arguments continue and testimony unfolds, observers note that the trial’s outcomes could have implications far beyond the individual case, potentially shaping how digital platforms are regulated and what legal responsibilities tech companies owe to young users and their families. Jurors will be tasked with considering not only the specifics of the allegations but also whether the design and operation of these ubiquitous digital platforms meet a threshold of accountability in civil courts for alleged harms that critics argue have grown more visible and troubling over time.