Meta and Google returned to Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday for the second day of a landmark trial over claims their platforms were designed to addict young users — a closely watched case that could carry major consequences for hundreds of similar lawsuits nationwide.
The outcome could put the social media giants on the hook for significant damages in this case and others, should a Los Angeles jury side with the plaintiffs. The lawsuit is widely viewed as a bellwether for roughly 1,600 related cases across the country, underscoring the potential legal and financial ripple effects.
Still, much remains uncertain. Attorneys told the court the trial could stretch six to eight weeks, offering little early indication of how jurors might ultimately rule.
As day two nears a close, here’s an overview of where things stand.
The lead attorney for the plaintiff, identified only as K.G.M, and for Meta presented dueling opening statements to jurors this week, offering an early preview of their most compelling arguments and points they are likely to revisit for the duration of the trial.
Mark Lanier, the attorney for the plaintiffs, told jurors that deciding in favor of his client, K.G.M. will be ‘as easy as ABC,’ which he told the court stands for ‘addicting the brains of children.’
Lanier’s opening statement was neither short nor lacking in props, including a toy Ferrari, a bicycle hand brake, and eggs —introduced to the jury, one-by-one, over the course of his two-hour remarks.
He argued the selective tactics used by tech giants were the same tactics embraced by casinos, ‘borrowing heavily’ from slot machines and tobacco companies in an attempt to ‘deliberately’ develop design features that maximize youth engagement, target younger users — and make it difficult for them to disengage from the platforms compared to older users and adults.
‘For a teenager, social validation is survival,’ Lanier said, noting that Meta, Google, and others ‘engineered a feature that caters to a minor’s craving for social validation.’
Meta lawyer Paul Schmidt, for his part, starkly contrasted Lanier’s tactics in his own remarks to the jury. His presentation was more formal and buttoned-up, as he ticked carefully through the points denoted in a PowerPoint presentation.
Schmidt argued that K.G.M.’s struggles existed largely independently of the platform, telling jurors that their responsibility is to determine only whether Meta played a ‘substantial factor’ in her mental health struggles.
He cited excerpts from the plaintiff’s medical history, therapy sessions, and childhood to argue that the struggles she encountered appear to stem from other issues, including family problems, bullying, and issues with body image.
Schmidt also cited a 2025 interview in which K.G.M. said she continues to use Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok, which he said undercut the claim of substantial harm.
The outcome of the case could have a profound impact on hundreds of other cases in the U.S., including some that are slated to begin as early as this year.
It comes as parents, school districts, and other regulators have cited concerns about phone use among young people, including social media use.
Plaintiffs in the cases have argued that the companies themselves should be held liable for knowingly embracing design features that they say aim to keep children online.
The majority of lawsuits filed to date against the companies have alleged similar harm, including addiction, depression, anxiety, or self-harm behaviors.
Because the case is being heard in civil court, it is unclear how much a jury might award to the plaintiff, should they find in favor of K.G.M.
But experts say these outcomes could have a far-reaching consequences beyond simply financial exposure, impacting the design and regulation standards for social media giants for years to come.