Jurors in Los Angeles are being asked to decide whether some of the world’s most powerful tech platforms were deliberately built to hook children’s brains. At the center of the first landmark trial is a young woman, identified as Kaley, whose family says her descent into severe mental health struggles began with seemingly harmless scrolling.
The case pits parents and their lawyers against Meta, Google-owned YouTube and other social media giants, and it could redefine how U.S. law treats the design of digital products aimed at minors. What is on trial is not just corporate behavior, but an entire attention economy that treats kids’ time and data as raw material.
The first landmark test of “engineered addiction” claims
The Los Angeles trial is the opening test of a sweeping legal theory that social media apps for children are not neutral communication tools but addictive products akin to nicotine or gambling. In this case, the family of 20-year-old Kaley G.M. argues that Meta and Google-owned YouTube knowingly deployed design tricks that kept her glued to her phone through adolescence, worsening anxiety, depression and self-harm until she required intensive treatment, according to filings described to the jury before Judge Carolyn Kuhl. Lawyers for the family say the platforms’ core business model depends on maximizing engagement among young users, and that Kaley’s experience shows what happens when a teenager becomes the product.
Opening statements framed the apps as “a mini slot machine” that constantly rewards swipes and taps with unpredictable hits of novelty and social validation, a pattern that plaintiffs say was no accident but the result of deliberate behavioral engineering by Meta and Google. Jurors were told that features such as endless feeds, autoplay video and algorithmic recommendations were tuned to keep children chasing the next hit of stimulation, a claim that echoes broader concerns raised in public hearings and in explanatory videos on youth screen time, including short clips on platforms like YouTube Shorts and longer explainers on social media addiction. In court, those abstract worries are being translated into specific allegations of negligence and defective design against the companies.
How parents say apps turned kids’ phones into slot machines
Parents and their lawyers argue that the addictive quality of these apps is not a side effect but the product of a design philosophy that borrows heavily from casinos and behavioral psychology. In their telling, features like streaks, push notifications and infinite scroll are not just conveniences, they are variable reward systems that keep children checking in, often late into the night, and that made Kaley’s phone feel impossible to put down. One filing cited by the court describes how she cycled through Instagram and YouTube for hours, chasing algorithmically curated content that grew darker over time, even as her offline life deteriorated.
Those arguments build on a wave of lawsuits accusing Meta, TikTok, Snap and YouTube of causing personal injury with “addictive products” aimed at minors, a phrase that has now migrated from legal briefs into opening statements in front of juries. In Los Angeles, lawyers pointed to internal-style growth tactics and engagement metrics that, they say, rewarded teams for keeping kids on the platforms longer, while critics outside the courtroom have described how Meta and Google allegedly “engineered addiction” into their products. A broader set of complaints, highlighted in posts that note how Meta, TikTok, and are all heading to court, describe a common pattern: children who start with light entertainment and end up trapped in compulsive use that crowds out sleep, schoolwork and in-person relationships.
Inside the Los Angeles courtroom and the case of Kaley G.M.
The trial unfolding before Judge Carolyn Kuhl is built around the story of Kaley G.M., who is now 20 but whose parents say her troubles began when she joined social media in middle school. According to their complaint, Kaley’s feeds quickly filled with idealized images and emotionally charged videos that fed insecurities about her body and social status, while recommendation systems steered her toward content that normalized self-harm and disordered eating. By the time her family realized how much time she was spending online, they say, she was already caught in a cycle of compulsive use and deteriorating mental health that culminated in hospitalizations and long-term therapy.
Lawyers for the family argue that Meta and Google had ample warning about such risks from internal research and outside experts, yet continued to prioritize growth among young users. They point to a broader pattern of complaints from parents, schools and researchers, echoed in coverage of a landmark case accusing social media companies of “addicting the brains of children.” In that broader litigation landscape, Kaley’s case is being treated as a bellwether that could influence how hundreds of similar claims are resolved, either through verdicts or settlements.
Tech giants’ defense: safeguards, free speech and shared responsibility
Meta, Google and their peers reject the accusation that they intentionally harm children, and their lawyers have signaled a defense that leans on product safeguards, parental responsibility and free speech protections. Company representatives say they have invested heavily in tools that let parents set time limits, restrict content and monitor activity, and they argue that no algorithm can fully replace the role of adults in guiding teens’ media use. They also insist that the same platforms blamed for harm have given young people vital spaces for connection, creativity and support, particularly during periods of isolation.
In court filings and public statements, the companies have framed the lawsuits as attempts to make them the sole scapegoats for complex youth mental health trends. One filing, cited in coverage of the trial, notes that “Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” and insists that protecting young people has “been core to our work,” a line reflected in summaries of the companies’ response. Another report on the same proceedings notes that the tech firms dispute claims that their products deliberately harm children and instead point to a “bevy of safeguards” and a stated commitment to supporting. Their legal teams are also expected to argue that aggressive regulation of recommendation algorithms could collide with First Amendment protections for how information is organized and presented online.
Why this trial matters far beyond one family
Although the Los Angeles case centers on Kaley, it is part of a much larger legal and political reckoning over kids’ relationship with social media. Jury selection in this and related cases began in Jan, when judges started seating panels for a series of landmark trials that accuse Meta, TikTok, Snap and YouTube of causing personal injury with addictive products. Earlier this year, coverage of the Los Angeles proceedings noted that the world’s biggest social media companies face several such trials, including one in which parents allege that platforms “addicted the brains of children,” as summarized in reports on the Los Angeles lawsuit. Education advocates in California have also highlighted how the case intersects with school concerns about distraction and mental health, with one update describing a landmark trial in that could shape how districts respond to student phone use.
