LA Court Case on Addicting Social Media Begins

California is once again at the center of a national experiment. This time focus is on a Los Angeles courtroom where social media companies, specifically Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram) and Google’s YouTube, are being accused of “addicting” children to their platforms. The closely watched case alleges that features like algorithm-driven feeds and engagement tools have deliberately been designed to keep young users online for extended periods of time. This “doom-scrolling”, as some like to call it, contributes to anxiety, depression, and other mental-health challenges.

The plaintiffs want this trial to serve as a moment for Big Tech what Big Tobacco faced in the 1990s. They argue that companies knowingly created products that exploit youthful psychology. They claim that design elements of social media such as algorithm-driven feeds and “like” buttons exploit young users’ desire for validation, allegedly contributing to mental-health struggles. This argument, while emotionally appealing, glosses over a sweeping difference: cigarettes harm users when used exactly as directed. Social media, however, is a tool that can be used wisely, poorly, or not at all. That distinction matters not just legally, but also culturally, and it has a lot to do with actions taken by parents in the home.

Attorneys for Meta counter that the central legal question is not whether social media can be harmful in general, but whether it was a “substantial factor” in this particular plaintiff’s challenges. They argue the case hinges on whether these platforms were truly the driving force behind struggles of one young woman, the lead plaintiff. The defense points to other factors such as bullying, family conflict, and pre-existing emotional issues. In other words, life is complicated and multi-faceted. Anxiety and depression can have many compounding factors in a minor’s life, and those factors existed long before the invention of social media.

This Los Angeles-centered case is part of a broader wave of litigation. More than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits accusing Meta of deliberately designing features that foster compulsive use among young people. These additional trials, including cases involving school districts, are scheduled across the country. If successful, these lawsuits could fundamentally alter how social media platforms operate and how courts treat product design in the digital age.

What is unfolding here is part of a broader trend in California governance. When confronted with difficult social problems, the instinct is to regulate, litigate, and assign liability rather than confront deeper cultural questions. California’s politicians would rather legislate away cultural issues and play guardian than actually let parents do that job. It can be seen in the recent trans youth cases and school board disagreements. If courts begin holding technology companies responsible for how individuals choose to use their products, there may be no logical stopping point on that slippery slope. Smartphones, video games, and streaming services could face similar claims that they enable harmful behavior.

None of this is to say social media and technology in general is harmless. Parents across the country worry, often rightly, about screen time. Bullying, which used to be done face-to-face and confined to school can now be done anonymously and 24 hours a day. But outsourcing those concerns to the legal system risks replacing parental authority with judicial oversight and in the future politicians’ oversight. A lawsuit cannot teach moderation, enforce bedtimes, or instill values. Families do that. Are Californians really prepared to hold individuals accountable for how they raise and guide their children, or will they continue searching for corporate defendants to blame for their children’s problems? This courtroom drama may deliver a verdict on liability. It will not deliver a substitute for responsibility.