‘Addicting the brains of kids’ social media case begins

The world’s largest social media companies are facing several significant lawsuits seeking to hold them accountable for harm caused to children who use their platforms.

Opening statements for one such hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court began Monday.

Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube are facing allegations that their platforms are deliberately addicting and harming children. TikTok and Snap, originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed amounts.

Jurors got their first glimpse of what will be a lengthy trial characterized by dueling narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining social media companies named as defendants.

Meta lawyer Paul Schmidt talked about the disagreement within the scientific community over social media addiction; some believe it does not exist or that addiction is not the most appropriate way to describe heavy social media use.

Mark Lanier first made his opening statement for the plaintiffs at a live show, saying the case was “as easy as ABC” and that it amounted to “getting kids’ brains hooked.”

He called Meta and Google “two of the richest companies in history” that “engineered addiction in children’s brains.”

He presented jurors with scores of internal emails, documents and studies conducted by Meta and YouTube, as well as YouTube’s parent company, Google.

He highlighted the findings of a study conducted by Meta called ‘Project Myst’, in which 1000 teenagers and their parents were surveyed about their social media use.

Two key findings, according to Lanier, were that the company knew that children who experienced “adverse events” such as trauma and stress were particularly vulnerable to addiction; and that parental monitoring and controls have little impact.

He also showed internal Google documents comparing YouTube to a casino and internal communications among Meta employees in which one person said Instagram was “like a drug” and employees were “fundamentally unattractive.”

At the center of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old man identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies play out.

He and two other plaintiffs were selected for preliminary hearings; essentially test cases to see how each side’s arguments would play out in front of a jury.

Lanier spent time talking about her childhood, focusing specifically on what her personality was like before she started using social media, saying her mother called her a “creative spark” as a child.

He started using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at the age of nine, and had published 284 videos on YouTube before finishing primary school.

The outcome of the trial could have profound impacts on companies’ business and how they handle children using their platforms.

Lanier said the companies’ lawyers “will try to blame the little girl and her family for the trap they set.”

He was a minor when he said he became addicted to social media platforms and it had a detrimental effect on his mental health.

Lanier said that despite the public view that Meta and YouTube are working to protect children and implement safeguards around their use of the platforms, their own internal documents show a completely different position, with explicit reference to young children as the target audience.

Lanier also made comparisons between social media companies and tobacco companies, citing internal communications among Meta employees who were concerned about the company’s lack of proactive action about the potential harm its platforms could have on children and teenagers.

“For a teenager, social approval is survival,” Lanier said.

He mentioned “Like” buttons and similar features, adding that the defendants “designed a feature that appealed to minors’ desire for social validation.”

In his opening statement representing Meta, Schmidt said the central question in the case was whether the platforms were a significant factor in FGM’s mental health battle.

He spent much of his time reviewing the plaintiff’s medical records, highlighting that she had experienced many difficult situations in her childhood, including emotional abuse, body image issues, and bullying.

Schmidt presented a clip from the video testimony of Thomas Suberman, one of KGM’s mental health providers. Suberman said social media “wasn’t the outline of what I remember being the main issues,” adding that her struggles largely stemmed from interpersonal conflicts and relationships.

Schmidt emphasized to jurors that the case is not about whether social media is a good thing, the content seen on social media, whether teens spend too much time on their phones, or whether jurors like Meta, but whether social media is a major factor in FGM’s mental health battle.

Judge Carolyn B Kuhl emphasized that jurors should not make any changes to the way they interact with the platforms, including changing their settings or creating new accounts, and that they should independently decide the responsibilities of Meta and YouTube on purpose.

Australia’s Associated Press is the beating heart of Australian news. AAP is Australia’s only independent national news channel and has been providing accurate, reliable and fast-paced news content to the media industry, government and corporate sector for 85 years. We inform Australia.