In Los Angeles on Feb. 25, a woman identified in court as Kaley G.M. is expected to take the witness stand to describe how early exposure to social media shaped her mental health. The case, now in trial, centers on her contention that using Meta Platforms’ Instagram beginning at age 9 and Google’s YouTube beginning at age 6 contributed to conditions including depression and body dysmorphia.
Her attorneys say the social media companies pursued profit by designing services that would draw in young children and keep them engaged, even when there was evidence the platforms could harm younger users’ mental health. Those allegations are part of a broader international backlash over social media’s effects on children and teenagers; Australia has instituted a ban on young users of the platforms and other nations are reported to be contemplating similar restrictions.
The early stages of the trial concentrated on internal company knowledge and business strategies related to youth users. Trial testimony and documents addressed what the companies knew about how social media used by children and teens can affect mental well-being, and how product choices related to younger users were discussed internally. CEO testimony in the case included an acknowledgment that Meta discussed potential products for children but did not roll them out.
As the case progresses, the focus has shifted to the plaintiff’s account of the personal consequences she attributes to her use of the services. To prevail, her legal team must demonstrate that the manner in which the platforms were designed or operated was a substantial factor in causing or aggravating her mental health difficulties.
Meta’s opening statements to the court highlighted aspects of the plaintiff’s background. According to the company’s lawyer, her medical records document episodes of verbal and physical abuse and a difficult relationship with her parents following their divorce when she was 3 years old. Those records were presented as part of the defense’s effort to show other factors bearing on her mental health.
The plaintiff’s counsel has pointed to an internal Meta study indicating that teens experiencing challenging life circumstances reported more frequent habitual or unintentional Instagram use, a finding the lawyers presented as evidence of the platform’s role in habitual engagement among vulnerable users.
Specific product features are also under scrutiny in court. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue elements such as autoplaying videos, an infinitely scrolling feed and social validation mechanics like "like" buttons were built to extend user time on the platforms and that filters targeting appearance could distort young users’ self-image. Those design choices are alleged to have relevance to youth mental health harms.
Representing YouTube, the company’s attorney has argued the plaintiff did not make use of platform features intended to protect users from bullying or to manage viewing time, citing a court filing. The filing references records showing an average daily viewing time for YouTube Shorts of approximately 1 minute 14 seconds and an average time spent streaming YouTube videos over the past five years of roughly 29 minutes.
The litigation now juxtaposes testimony and studies about platform design and youth engagement with the individual plaintiff’s medical and usage records. The court will weigh whether the defendants’ product designs and operational decisions were a substantial contributing factor to the mental health issues the plaintiff describes.
Is GOOGL a bargain right now?The fastest way to find out is with our Fair Value calculator. We use a mix of 17 proven industry valuation models for maximum accuracy. Get the bottom line for GOOGL plus thousands of other stocks and find your next hidden gem with massive upside.See Undervalued Stocks