top of page

Jury Deliberates in Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial



The nation's first bellwether trial in 'The Social Media Trials' has reached a critical turning point as jurors deliberate in Los Angeles. The matter could be decided legally: is Big Tech actively hooking our kids, and could they pay for it?



Context

In the 1990s, litigation that had failed repeatedly for the previous 40 years against tobacco companies began to see some success when documentation leaked showing that the companies were aware of the link between cigarettes and cancer.


Previous lawsuits had many different reasons and rules, which gave tobacco companies more legal options to dodge liability for the claims made by individual plaintiffs. Then, in 1998, 46 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories settled with the companies, citing consumer protection, antitrust, and public health concerns. This agreement became known as the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA).


The settlement required large ongoing payments that continue today, prompted changes in industry practices such as advertising restrictions, and helped enable greater success in subsequent individual lawsuits starting in the early 2000s.


The Social Media Trials are often compared to these tobacco cases.


The broad umbrella known as The Social Media Trials is not new. However, previous approaches have led to complications in legal footing for plaintiffs. Beginning with Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (1997), platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) have been shielded from legal liability in thousands of cases focused on concerns about content because of Section 230, a federal law that states:


​​No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


In essence, this shields platforms from being held liable as publishers or speakers of third-party user content.


The bellwether case taking place in Los Angeles is different. The case is known as K.G.M. (Kaley) v. Meta Platforms & Google/YouTube. Instead of suing over content, the plaintiff is alleging the design of the platforms themselves is inherently addictive and causes harm to minors. The plaintiff is a 20-year-old who alleges addiction beginning with YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9 (with later use of Snapchat and TikTok), leading to major mental health issues including depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts. 


January 2026, before the trial fully began



What is a Bellwether Trial?

The Social Media Trials consist of similar civil claims from thousands of individuals (including minors and young adults) and hundreds of school districts nationwide. In such cases, referred to legally as a mass tort, individual cases can be consolidated at a federal or state level, meaning the same judge presides over pretrial matters. This helps maintain consistent reasoning while the individual trials can still occur separately. In California, K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms & Google/YouTube is part of one such consolidation known as JCCP 5255. A bellwether trial tests jury reactions to the plaintiffs’ claims, providing data for settlement negotiations down the road. K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms & Google/YouTube is one of three such cases in California.



Worldview Roundup

Beyond the courtroom, this trial invites deeper reflection on responsibility, parenthood and childhood, and the role of technology in our lives.


The jury decision in this bellwether case has massive implications not only for how Big Tech is allowed to operate in providing addictive technologies to minors, but in providing a window into what our culture overall is saying about the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in fueling such addictions and their consequences. It forces us to ask questions like: 


  • Who bears ultimate responsibility when powerful tools designed to capture attention lead to real harm? 

  • Are parents, schools, and communities equipped to counterbalance corporate influence? 

  • And how do we balance legitimate innovation with the protection of the most vulnerable among us?


At the Center for Biblical Unity, we urge a “justice begins at home approach.” No matter Big Tech’s just or unjust capabilities to harm our children, it is our job to prepare and protect them for life in a fallen world, of which social media and rampant technology access will always be a part.


This does not absolve companies of moral or legal accountability, but it does remind us that waiting for courtroom verdicts or new regulations cannot replace proactive parenting. Ministries like our friends at Brave Parenting offer coaching for Christian parents to help them set screen-time boundaries, model healthy tech use, foster face-to-face relationships, and teach discernment about digital content. These efforts can go far in protecting our children’s hearts and minds. Churches and families together can create communities where technology serves rather than masters our souls.

 
 
bottom of page