A California state court is weighing whether major social media companies can be held responsible for the way their products are designed. The case centers on claims that popular platforms were engineered to keep young users engaged for extended periods, despite internal awareness of potential risks.
Table of contents
- Kaley G.M. lawsuit against Meta Platforms and Google
- Trial scope and potential legal consequences in California
- Claims of harm and defenses presented by Meta and Google
- Broader U.S. and global legal pressure on social media
Kaley G.M. lawsuit against Meta Platforms and Google
The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified in court as Kaley G.M., has filed suit against Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and Google, which owns YouTube. Her lawyer, Mark Lanier, told jurors that Kaley became heavily engaged with social media at a young age due to the platforms’ design features. He said internal company documents show that, “these companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children, and they did it on purpose.” Both Meta and YouTube have denied the allegations and were scheduled to deliver opening statements later the same day.
Trial scope and potential legal consequences in California
The case is being overseen by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl. She instructed jurors that the companies cannot be held liable for content created by users, only for their own platform design and operation. A verdict against the companies could weaken a long-standing U.S. legal defense that shields internet firms from liability for user harm. Google, Meta, TikTok and Snap face thousands of similar lawsuits in California, while Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify. The trial is expected to continue into March.
Claims of harm and defenses presented by Meta and Google
Kaley is also expected to testify. She alleges that prolonged exposure to the apps contributed to depression and suicidal thoughts. Her legal team aims to establish three core points:
- negligent app design
- failure to warn users about known risks
- a direct connection between platform features and her injuries
If jurors agree, they may award damages for pain and suffering and consider punitive damages. Meta and Google plan to argue that other factors in Kaley’s life played a role, while also highlighting their youth safety initiatives and efforts to limit harmful material.
Broader U.S. and global legal pressure on social media
The California case is part of a wider legal backlash. More than 2,300 related lawsuits have been filed in U.S. federal courts by parents, school districts and state attorneys general. On the same day, a jury in Santa Fe, New Mexico heard opening statements in the state's case accusing Meta of profiting from its platforms while exposing children and teens to sexual exploitation and damaging their mental health. Donald Migliori, an attorney for the New Mexico attorney general, told the jury, “It’s true that in the United States that all companies have goals to make money,” adding that, “Meta made its profits while publicly misrepresenting that its platforms were safe for youth, downplaying or outright lying about what it knows about the dangers of its platforms.” Meta has denied the allegations.
Beyond the United States, governments are also responding. Australia and Spain have prohibited access to social media platforms for users under age 16, and other countries are considering similar curbs. The outcome of the California trial may influence how courts worldwide assess responsibility for social media platform design.
For verified reporting on the case, see coverage published by Reuters
https://www.reuters.com
FAQ
Who is suing Meta Platforms and Google in the California trial?
The lawsuit was filed by a 20-year-old woman identified in court as Kaley G.M., who alleges harm caused by the design of social media platforms.
Which companies are named as defendants in the case?
The defendants are Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and Google, which owns YouTube.
What are the main allegations presented to the jury?
The plaintiff claims the platforms were deliberately designed to be addictive to children, failed to warn users about risks, and contributed to her depression and suicidal thoughts.
What role do internal company documents play in the trial?
According to the plaintiff’s lawyer, internal documents are cited as evidence that the companies knowingly built products intended to addict young users.
What legal limits did the judge place on company liability?
The judge instructed jurors that the companies cannot be held liable for content created by users, only for their own design and operation of the platforms.
What could happen if the jury rules against the tech companies?
A verdict against the companies could lead to damages for pain and suffering, possible punitive damages, and influence thousands of similar lawsuits.
Are there other related cases in the United States?
Yes, more than 2,300 similar lawsuits have been filed in U.S. federal courts by parents, school districts, and state attorneys general.
How are governments outside the United States responding?
Countries such as Australia and Spain have introduced bans on social media use for children under 16, while other nations are considering similar restrictions.
Quelle: REUTERS