By Diana Novak Jones
Oct 28 (Reuters) – Two teenage plaintiffs who say social media caused them to develop serious mental health problems will take Meta Platforms and Snap to trial in Los Angeles on Wednesday in the latest test of claims raised in thousands of US lawsuits over social media’s impact on young people.
The case is only the second to go to trial involving individual plaintiffs who allege that social media companies deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive. Social media companies lost the first such trial to the tune of $6 million in damages in March.
Plaintiffs referred to in court papers as S.J., a 16-year-old girl from Illinois, and K.D.B., an 18-year-old woman from Mississippi, have said they began using YouTube as early as age 3 or 4 and other platforms around age 9. They have alleged that autoplay, infinite scroll and other features drove them to compulsive use, and they developed depression, anxiety and eating disorders as a result.
The trial, which begins with the jury selection process on Wednesday, is expected to run for several weeks. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel are expected to testify.
The two plaintiffs initially sued TikTok and Alphabet’s YouTube, in addition to Meta and Snap. Both reached settlements with TikTok and YouTube ahead of trial, and the Illinois plaintiff also settled with Meta. Wednesday’s trial covers claims by both plaintiffs against Snap, and the Mississippi plaintiff’s claims against Meta.
Meta and Snap have asked Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, presiding over the proceedings, to split the cases into separate trials, arguing that trying them together would unfairly mix up the evidence for jurors. The judge has not yet ruled on that request.
‘A YOUNG PERSON’S MENTAL HEALTH’
A Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the claims made against it and has built protections into its platforms for a decade. Meta owns Instagram and Facebook.
“A young person’s mental health is shaped by many factors, as the evidence in this trial will show,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The plaintiff used TikTok far more than Instagram or Facebook, and her personal circumstances were a substantial factor in her struggles.”
A Snap spokesperson said its Snapchat platform is different from traditional social media because it does not open to a feed or a ranking of what other people post. The company has built safeguards into its platform, the spokesperson said.
“We believe the evidence will support that we have put our community first, and that these allegations fundamentally misrepresent their experiences on Snapchat and how our platform was designed,” the spokesperson said.
Emily Jeffcott, an attorney representing the Mississippi plaintiff, said in a statement ahead of the trial that “we look forward to educating the jury about the dangers of features like endless feeds, autoplay and streaks and how Meta – and allegedly Snap as well – have implemented and emphasized these features.”
A TEST CASE
Plaintiffs S.J. and K.D.B. sued in 2023. Both described staying awake for hours scrolling social media, losing focus in class and engaging in self-harm using methods shown in social media videos. They are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
Their cases are among more than 3,000 lawsuits brought by individuals and others that have been consolidated in Los Angeles Superior Court. Their lawsuits have been selected as bellwethers, or test cases, meaning the verdict could influence how the companies and plaintiffs resolve the remaining cases.
Social media companies have denied that their platforms were designed to addict young people, and have said they have taken action to make the apps safe for young users. They also have argued that they are shielded from the claims by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 federal law that generally protects online platforms from liability over user-generated content.
The trial judge disagreed that Section 230 bars claims over how the sites are designed, and allowed the suits by the two plaintiffs to go to trial.
In the case decided in March, a Los Angeles jury found that Meta and YouTube were negligent, siding with a young woman referred to in court papers as Kaley G.M. There have been multiple cases scheduled for trial since then, but the companies have settled the claims or, in some cases, the plaintiffs have chosen to drop them.
SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND STATES SUE
More than 3,800 lawsuits brought by states, school districts and individuals over similar claims are pending in federal court in California, court records showed.
In August, Meta reached settlements worth up to $18 billion to resolve claims made by nearly every US state and territory over the impact of its platforms on teen mental health. The company agreed as part of that deal to change how teens can access Instagram and Facebook.
Members of Meta’s senior legal team told reporters after that settlement that the company views the individual and school district cases as harder to prove at trial than cases brought by states because they require plaintiffs to directly link specific problems to its social media platforms.
Meta is appealing the verdict in the case decided in March, arguing that Section 230 should have barred the claims by plaintiff Kaley G.M. A ruling in Meta’s favor on the issue could derail thousands of lawsuits over youth mental health and shield it from billions of dollars in potential liability that the company has said poses a serious threat to its future, according to experts.
(Reporting by Diana Novak Jones, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Will Dunham)
Comments