The action was filed by a 20-year-old woman, who claims to have suffered from digital addiction since childhood.
A civil court in Los Angeles this week became the stage for one of the most significant lawsuits involving technology and public health of recent years. On Monday (9), the trial began, which seeks to hold social media giants accountable for allegedly designing their platforms to generate addiction, especially in children and adolescents, in a case that has already been compared to the historic clash between American justice and the tobacco industry in the 1990s and 2000s.
The action was filed by a 20-year-old girl, identified in the records as Kaley GM, who claims to have suffered digital addiction since childhood, associated with anxiety, eating disorders and other psychological damage resulting from the compulsive use of platforms such as Instagram and YouTube.
‘Big Tech como Big Tobacco’ ?
The plaintiffs’ lawyers maintain that social networks such as Meta Platforms (owner of Instagram), Alphabet (which controls YouTube) and other large technology companies have intentionally designed features that lock users into platforms – such as infinite scrolling and recommendation algorithms – with the aim of maximizing engagement and advertising profits. This strategy, they argue, would operation analogous to tobacco industry practiceswhich for decades hid and minimized the health risks associated with the consumption of its products before being held massively liable.
Legal experts and lawyers involved in the case are already drawing parallels with the large settlements against the tobacco industry in the US, when manufacturers were forced to pay billions in compensation and changes in the way their products were marketed after decades of litigation.
What’s at stake in court
During the initial phase of the trial, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mark Lanier, told the jury that companies like Meta and Google had “engineered addiction into children’s brains” and exploited this dependency to keep users logged in longer — translating screen time into advertising revenue.
In turn, the Social media lawyers deny the accusation that their platforms cause clinical addiction and question the direct link between the use of services and reported mental health problems. The defense also argues that family or personal factors can explain the alleged psychological damage, and disputes the idea that social networks are equivalent to addictive products such as tobacco.
Witnesses and next steps
The trial marks the first time that high-ranking executives from these companies have been called to testify before a grand jury about these allegations. They are among those expected Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, and executives from other platforms involved.
Experts and digital rights groups point out that the outcome may have an impact beyond possible financial compensation, including influencing how social networks operate and are regulated in the US, as well as inspiring similar actions in other countries.
Wave of lawsuits in the US
This trial is just the first of hundreds of similar cases scheduled for this yearmany of which allege that digital platforms have caused psychological, emotional and behavioral harm to young users. The accumulation of complaints and the disclosure of internal documents that suggest knowledge of the risks by the developers themselves have made the litigation one of the most complex and most visible at the intersection of technology, law and public health.
What could change if social networks lose? The trial could have consequences far beyond compensation.
1. It could set a precedent for an avalanche of convictions
Even if the case does not involve huge amounts from the start, a defeat could create a “domino effect” and strengthen hundreds (or thousands) of similar lawsuits underway in the USA.
In practice, this could become the legal equivalent of what happened with tobacco: a chain of cases, with new actions in different states, pressuring companies to seek collective agreements.
2. It can force real changes to the design of platforms
If the jury considers that features such as infinite scrolling and automatic recommendations were created to exploit psychological vulnerabilities, it opens the way for decisions that require:
• reduction of recommendations for minors
• limitation of notifications by default
• transparency about how the algorithm works
• restrictions on tools considered “addictive”
In other words: it would not just be a dispute about compensation, but about how the product is built.
3. Digital advertising can hit you in the heart
The main financial engine of social networks is targeted advertising.
If the Court understands that the business model depends on “dependency retention”, the risk of measures such as:
• restrictions on advertisements for minors
• prohibition of targeting based on child behavior
• stricter rules for sensitive data
This could structurally change companies’ revenue.
4. Congress and states can fast-track tougher laws
Even before a final sentence, the trial increases political pressure. Lawmakers can use the case as a basis to pass federal laws on:
• minimum age
• age verification
• secure design by default (“safety by design”)
• limits on collecting data from children
Furthermore, state governments tend to feel more supported to create local legislation.
5. The judgment could become a “manual” for other countries
What happens in American courts tends to become a global reference.
If there is a relevant conviction or settlement, other countries may:
• copy legal arguments
• initiate similar actions
• impose similar rules on platforms
This includes Brazil, the European Union and Canada, which are already discussing regulating social networks with a focus on minors.
Why the comparison with tobacco is so strong
The analogy made by lawyers and analysts is not just rhetoric.
In the case of tobacco, what changed the game was the accusation that companies:
- knew about the damage
- minimized the risks
- maintained retention strategies
- lobbied to avoid regulation
The current lawsuits attempt to prove a similar logic: that platforms had internal data on mental health harms, but maintained high-engagement features for commercial reasons.
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Jovem Pan.
