Technology & Science
First U.S. jury trials on ‘engineered’ child social-media addiction open in LA and Santa Fe
On 10 February 2026 juries in Los Angeles County and Santa Fe heard opening statements in the first trials that put Meta’s Instagram/Facebook and Google’s YouTube directly on the hook for allegedly designing platforms that addict and harm children.
Focusing Facts
- The LA bellwether case—Kaley G.M. v. Meta & Google—began before Judge Carolyn Kuhl with a 20-year-old plaintiff and will test claims for more than 1,600 consolidated lawsuits.
- New Mexico’s seven-week state-AG suit, filed in 2023 by Raúl Torrez, also started the same day, marking the first standalone prosecution by a U.S. state over social-media harms to minors.
- TikTok and Snap quietly settled out of the LA case days earlier, leaving Meta and Google as the remaining defendants.
Context
This double-barreled legal opening recalls the 1994–1998 tobacco litigation, when a single Mississippi case and state AG suits cracked an industry once thought lawsuit-proof. Like Big Tobacco, the platforms are accused not of the content itself but of a business model—algorithmic ‘infinite scroll,’ likes, autoplay—optimized for compulsive use despite internal warnings. The trials probe deeper currents: mounting evidence of a post-pandemic youth mental-health slide, bipartisan impatience with Section 230’s broad shield, and a larger global swing toward treating data-driven design as a product safety issue (see the EU’s 2024 DSA or France’s 2025 under-15 ban). Whether the juries side with tech or plaintiffs, the mere fact that Zuckerberg, Mosseri and Mohan must defend design choices under oath signals a pivot point; over a century horizon, it could mark the moment digital attention economics began to face the sort of duty-of-care standards that eventually bound food, drugs and automobiles.
Perspectives
International outlets
e.g., Hindustan Times, eNCAnews, Deutsche Welle, The Manila Times — Cast the California and New Mexico trials as proof that tech behemoths knowingly “engineered addiction” in children, equating social-media design choices to predatory ‘traps’ that fuel a youth mental-health crisis. Sensational language and repeated tobacco-industry analogies grab global readers’ attention but largely sidestep Meta’s scientific rebuttals or the nuance of Section 230 protections raised in court.
US local and regional TV news
e.g., ABC 22-WJCL, KOAT 7, KSLTV — Report the states’ accusations yet give equal weight to Meta’s claim that it discloses risks, provides teen safeguards, and that family or bullying—not the apps—drive plaintiffs’ problems. Reliance on wire copy and company statements can make the coverage sound ‘both-sides’ while muting broader systemic critiques, a posture that keeps valuable tech advertisers unruffled.
Legal-industry press
Court House News Service — Frames the Los Angeles case as a bellwether whose verdict could pierce Section 230 shields and trigger a Big-Tobacco-style reckoning, spotlighting courtroom theatrics and strategy. Focus on dramatic legal stakes may inflate expectations of a sweeping precedent to captivate a niche legal audience, even though appellate realities could narrow any ruling.