By Sophie Dixon
Last month, Mark Zuckerberg testified in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, marking an important milestone in the landmark litigation against Meta and Google seeking to hold Meta and Google responsible for their users’ social media addiction.[1] Since 2023, thousands of plaintiffs across jurisdictions have recently filed similar cases alleging major tech companies intentionally designed addictive social media platforms, causing personal injury to their users.[2] Zuckerberg’s testimony was heard in a consolidated case representing 1,600 plaintiffs.[3]
Mother of lead plaintiff “KGM” filed one of these lawsuits, alleging that Meta, YouTube, Snap, and TikTok caused KGM to become addicted to their platforms during her childhood, leading to her depression, anxiety, and problems with body-image.[4] Citing KGM’s use of YouTube beginning at age 6, she claims that the site “disrupted [KGM’s] school performance, robbed her of sleep, stunted her in-person social life and strained family relations.”[5] Recent studies support a correlation between addictive social media use and negative mental health outcomes.[6]
Plaintiffs argue that defendants have designed their platforms to “take advantage of the chemical reward system of users’ brains to create addictive engagement through features such as automatic video playing and feeds that allow users to scroll endlessly.[7] In terms of legal strategy, the plaintiffs are using a strategy modeled off of the historic Big Tobacco litigation of the 1990s by alleging that defendants intentionally engage, addict, and exploit users as children to drive long-term profitability.[8] That litigation led to a massive $206 billion dollar settlement as well as major increases in regulation of the tobacco industry.[9] If successful, plaintiffs like KGM may open the door to similarly significant monetary awards. Snap and TikTok have already reached settlements in the case.[10]
With YouTube and Meta remaining in this case, these defendants are attacking the credibility of the plaintiffs’ claims, denying “a clear link between social media use and addiction.”[11] They also argue they are protected from liability for what users of their platforms post, as a result of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.[12] Given the hurdle of Section 230, the plaintiffs are separating their argument from the content present on the platforms, focusing rather on their design.[13]
By focusing on claims for design defect, strict liability for failure to warn, and product liability for negligent design, plaintiffs can leverage both negligence and strict liability theories against defendants.[14] The complaint argues that the defendant companies each defectively designed their products “to addict minors and young adults, who were particularly unable to appreciate the risks posed by the products, and particularly susceptible to harms from those products.”[15] The failure to warn claim argues that Meta, for example, “does not warn users when their screen time reaches harmful levels or when adolescents are accessing the product habitually.”[16]
Sophie Dixon is a 2L at Vanderbilt Law School from Seattle, WA. Prior to law school, she studied neuroscience at Stanford University. She plans to work in New York after graduation.
As this litigation unfolds in the upcoming months and years, it will reveal whether tort law can be an effective tool for targeting concerns over social media usage.
[1] See Eli Tan, Mark Zuckerberg Takes the Stand in Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial, N.Y. Times (Feb. 18, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/18/technology/mark-zuckerberg-tech-addiction-trial.html.
[2] Cecilia Kang, Social Media Giants Face Landmark Legal Tests on Child Safety, N.Y. Times (Jan. 27, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/27/technology/social-media-addiction-trial.html.
[3] Christina Pazzanese, Is Social Media Responsible for What Happens to Users?, Harv. Gazette (Feb. 27, 2026), https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/02/is-social-media-responsible-for-what-happens-to-users/#:~:text=A%201996%20law%20protects%20online,parents%20and%20teachers%2C%20suggests%20otherwise.
[4] Id.
[5] California Woman Suing Meta, YouTube Testifies Social Media Took Toll on Mental Health, Reuters (Feb. 26, 2026 at 10:34 AM CST), https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/woman-suing-meta-youtube-over-social-media-addiction-expected-take-stand-trial-2026-02-26/.
[6] See Yunyu Xiao et. al., Addictive Screen Use Trajectories and Suicidal Behaviors, Suicidal Ideation, and Mental Health in US Youths, 334 JAMA 219, 226 (2025) (finding association between addictive social media use and increased risk of suicidal behaviors); Pengcheng Wang et. al., Social Networking Sites Addiction and Adolescent Depression: A Moderated Mediation Model of Rumination and Self-Esteem, 127 Elsevier 162, 166 (concluding that social media addiction is a risk factor for developing depression).
[7] Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint (Pers. Inj.) at 238, In re Soc. Media Adolescent Addiction/Pers. Inj. Products Liab. Litig., No. 4:22-MD-3047 (Feb. 14, 2023) [hereinafter “Master Complaint”].
[8] See id. at 1; Kang, supra note 2.
[9] Kang, supra note 2.
[10] Id.
[11] Cecilia Kang, TikTok Settles Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Ahead of a Landmark Trial, N.Y. Times (Jan. 27, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/27/technology/tiktok-settlement-social-media-addiction-lawsuit.html.
[12] Id.; see 47 U.S.C. § 230.
[13] See Pazzanese, supra note 3.
[14] See Master Complaint, supra note 7.
[15] Id. at 238.
[16] Id. at 142.