Social Media On Trial

A critical trial is underway examining whether social media giants designed their products to be addictive to users – image courtesy of Vecteezy.com.

Social media giants Meta and Google went on trial on February 9, 2026, in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The trial accuses major social media platforms of purposely designing their apps to be addictive. This case serves as a bellwether test that represents a large group of similar lawsuits. Let’s take a look.

How Did We Get Here?

At its core, this is a landmark lawsuit accusing major platforms — primarily Meta (Instagram/Facebook) and Google (YouTube) — of intentionally designing their apps to be addictive, especially for children and teens. The case centers on a young woman, identified as KGM or Kaley, who says she began using Instagram and YouTube as a child and developed compulsive use that worsened depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. TikTok and Snapchat were originally defendants but settled before trial, leaving Meta and Google to face the jury.

Plaintiffs argue that the companies:

Engineered addictive features — infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic recommendations, push notifications.
Knew these features harmed young users but continued to deploy them.
Failed to enforce age restrictions, allowing children under 13 to use the platforms.
Used “behavioral and neurobiological techniques” similar to slot machines to keep minors engaged.

Observers compare this case to the tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s because it targets product design rather than user‑generated content, allowing plaintiffs to bypass Section 230 protections. Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Congress designed the law to protect online platforms from being held legally responsible for what users post.

What is the Current Status of the Trial?

The trial is actively underway in Los Angeles, and as of the latest reports:

Jury selection began on January 26, 2026.
Multiple outlets confirm that Mark Zuckerberg testified in Los Angeles federal court, defending Meta against claims that Instagram was deliberately designed to be addictive to children and teens.
Attorneys have questioned Zuckerberg about internal documents, design choices, and Meta’s knowledge of youth harm. He denies claims that Instagram is inherently addictive and has challenged how the internal documents were presented.
Instagram head Adam Mosseri also testified earlier, rejecting the idea of “clinical addiction.”
This is not a concluded trial — it is still unfolding, with testimony from executives, the introduction of internal documents, and cross‑examination ongoing.

Meta and Google remain the only defendants. As mentioned previously, TikTok and Snapchat settled before trial, so the courtroom focus is now entirely on Meta and Google.

Social media has contributed to both rising mental‑health challenges and the collapse of healthy public discourse, though it’s not the only cause. The research is complex, but the patterns are consistent enough to take seriously. Most researchers avoid saying “social media causes mental illness,” but they do identify several ways it contributes to or exacerbates existing vulnerabilities, especially in teens:

Constant comparison increases anxiety, body‑image pressure, and low self‑esteem.
Algorithmic reinforcement keeps users in loops of content that intensifies distress (e.g., self‑harm, eating‑disorder, or rage‑based content).
Sleep disruption from late‑night scrolling worsens depression and emotional regulation.
Reward‑loop design (likes, notifications, infinite scroll) fuels compulsive use.
Cyberbullying becomes inescapable because it follows users home.
Identity pressure (curating a perfect self) increases stress and emotional exhaustion.

The impact on the public discourse is significant:

Algorithms reward outrage.
Anonymity lowers empathy and increases hostility.
Moral framing on platforms shapes public attitudes.
Discourse can become polarized, stigmatizing, or compassion‑driven depending on platform dynamics.
Echo chambers intensify polarization by feeding people only what confirms their worldview.
Disinformation spreads faster than corrections.
Performative activism and call‑out culture replace genuine dialogue.
The rapid, exponential spread of content prioritizes emotional shock over truth or wisdom.

The Catholic View

Social media giants are on trial over product design in Los Angeles – image courtesy of Vecteezy.com.

When we look at Jesus’ words and actions, several themes immediately rise to the top of mind for this issue:

Truth.
Freedom.
Protection of the vulnerable.
Guarding the heart.
Resisting anything that distorts human dignity.

The addictive nature of social media fails all of these themes. For many people, especially teens, social media becomes the center of their lives. This is a form of idolatry. Idolatry is anything that claims the loyalty, desire, trust, or attention that belongs to God. God must be the center of our lives, and not social media. We already see the damage with the rise in mental health challenges (although the pandemic was a big contributor here), and the nastiness in the public discourse. Please pray that the outcome of these trials will lead to a genuine effort by product designers to make their apps more balanced than what we see today.

Please share your thoughts about this article in the “Comments” section.

Peace

If you like this article, you might enjoy:

Government Shutdown Part 3: They Failed Us Again!
The Temptations in the Desert
Budget Insights on NYC’s Fiscal Management Approach