TL;DR: A landmark trial starting today puts Meta and Google in court over whether they intentionally designed apps like Instagram and YouTube to addict kids—and whether that makes them legally liable for the damage. Snap and ByteDance (TikTok) both settled out of court. If the plaintiffs win, social media apps as we know them could change forever. What happened: A 19-year-old known as "KGM" is suing Meta and Google, claiming she developed serious mental health issues after becoming addicted to social media, which she began using at age 10. Jury selection begins today in Los Angeles Superior Court. The key question: Did these companies intentionally design their platforms to hook children? This is a "bellwether case"—a test meant to show how juries respond to the evidence and legal arguments. It's part of a much larger joint proceeding in California involving around 1,600 plaintiffs, ranging from families to school districts, all making similar claims against social media platforms, including Snap and ByteDance (despite settling within the past week for today's case). One expert told The Guardian that the decision to settle is a sign of how damaging the evidence could be. “You don’t settle unless you don’t want that stuff to be public,” she said. The trial will unseal internal documents, research, and emails that have never been made public, including Instagram employees allegedly calling the app a “drug” and joking they were “basically pushers.” What the plaintiffs say: These platforms pull us in with dark-pattern design features that maximize engagement—infinite scroll, nonstop notifications, autoplay, and recommendation algorithms (something users of all ages can likely attest to). But plaintiffs argue that the companies intentionally tried to rope in vulnerable young users to boost their profits. That addictiveness, they say, increases vulnerability to depression, eating disorders, self-harm, and anxiety. Their case leans heavily on internal company research, whistleblower testimony, and product design choices that allegedly prioritized engagement over safety. What the defense says: They are leaning on a “correlation isn’t causation” defense for these cases. Mental health problems are complex, they argue, and impossible to blame on a single source. They’ll stress that there’s no formal medical diagnosis for social media addiction, unlike substance use disorders. Companies will also likely argue that they’ve introduced a whole arsenal of child safety tools over the past several years—parental controls, teen accounts, content filters, and time-limit nudges. But reporting shows that, internally, Meta knew Instagram worsened body-image issues for many teen users, and its algorithm repeatedly surfaced eating disorder and self-harm content to vulnerable kids. Execs expected to be grilled: Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are expected to be key witnesses. There’s no word yet on which leaders from Google will testify. Why it matters: This is the first time major social platforms are being asked under oath whether they’ve made their products addictive on purpose. If the answer is yes, it could dramatically reshape how these apps are designed, weaken social media’s legal shields, and even accelerate social media bans for children—like the one Australia passed for under-16s last month. Critics warn that holding social media companies liable for kids’ mental health could lead to overmoderation and less open platforms. But for supporters, the benefits are clear: It could protect kids. Recent history offers some perspective on the potential for drastic change. In the mid-90s, over 1 in 3 US high schoolers smoked cigarettes. After decades of lawsuits, warnings, and advertising bans, that figure has fallen to the low single digits. Vaping has brought new problems, sure—but it shows how quickly norms can shift when products are treated as public health risks. —WK | 
—WK
