Under Fire: Are Addictive Social Media Algorithms Damaging?

For the first time in US history, social media companies are being held to account by a jury at trial.

This comes as a 19-year-old woman has claimed that the design of social media algorithms caused an addiction to the platforms and damaged her mental health. 

The woman, identified by the initials KGM, initially alleged that the owners of TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and Snapchat were all responsible for her depression at an early age due to the addictive nature of the five social media platforms.

Snapchat settled its lawsuit with the plaintiff on undisclosed terms and will not be standing trial.

Mark Zuckerberg is the Founder and CEO of Meta – which owns Instagram and Facebook – and is giving evidence during the trial.

The other defendants are TikTok's owner ByteDance and Google, which owns YouTube. 

Competing cases

The named social media companies are standing trial at Los Angeles Superior Court, defending themselves from the argument by the plaintiff that their algorithms are addictive and damaging. 

The companies have argued in previous cases using Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which strips the responsibility of social media companies having to regulate what third parties post. 

However, the main case argument of the plaintiff is that the design choices used by tech giants are addictive.

This includes their algorithms along with short-form content – which can be consumed for hours at a time.

By focusing on this case, the claimant steers away from the possible defence of a Section 230 protection.

A rising tide of lawsuits

While it is the first time that social media companies will be held to account by a jury, it is certainly not the first legal case that centres on allegations against social media companies. 

The KGM case is the first of many this year, with more than 40 state suits filed against Meta.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an antitrust lawsuit against Meta Platforms in conjunction with 46 states.

Back in November 2025, the court ruled in favour of Meta – however, the FTC announced last week that it would appeal its ruling. 

In January 2024 in a Senate hearing over safeguarding, Mark Zuckerberg apologised to parents whose children had suffered or died due to content on Meta's platforms, following a probing question from a senator. 

Social media law firms have been reaching out online for victims to contact them, aiming for families to file lawsuits against Meta and other tech giants and pursue damages for the negative impact that social media platforms have had on children and teens.

In a blog post, Meta wrote about how recent lawsuits have "placed the blame" on social media companies for the mental health struggles of teenagers.

The company says this "oversimplifies" a serious issue.

It adds that it has made efforts to keep records of the ways that they have helped their users.

"Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse," the blog post reads.

Meta's record points out how social media creates a "sense of belonging" and community, backed by a scientific report, in addition to the ability to grow a following for their hobbies.

It also explains how parents can use "supervision features" to set screen time, see who their children are messaging, and block usage when needed.

Comments from industry professionals

Business leaders from various industries have taken to LinkedIn to evaluate the potential effects of social media on both young minds and adults.

Pamela Lee, COO of Siksika Health Services, says: "For years, tech regulation focused on privacy and antitrust. This case goes further.

"It asks whether leaders can be held personally responsible when engagement driven systems are linked to youth mental health impacts.

"This matters beyond Meta. Boards, executives and product teams should treat safety and harm not as externalities but as material risk.

"The era of hiding behind platforms, policies and abstractions is narrowing fast."

Jurgita Jaruševičienė, Chairwoman of the Board at Edtech Lithuania, works at a company that advocates for use of tech in education.

She says: "Why should we care?

"Because if the court agrees that platform design harms children, the impact won’t stop in the US.

"It could influence education policy, school rules, parental choices and how we think about phones, screens and children’s everyday lives."

With a slate of technology‑safeguarding cases on the calendar this year, the first to reach the courtroom could set the tone for those that follow as a 'bellwether trial', shaping the legal framing and remedies the courts are willing to consider. 

Its outcome may influence how plaintiffs and platforms craft arguments and guide judicial expectations around compliance and accountability.

It could also signal to regulators, investors and the industry how similar claims are likely to be treated.