Meta’s Defense in Social Media Addiction Trial Is Basically a Shrug

 

# Meta’s Defense in Social Media Addiction Trial Is Basically a Shrug

**Published: February 28, 2026**

You know that feeling when someone gets caught doing something wrong, and their excuse is basically "everyone else was doing it" or "it's not that big of a deal"?

That's essentially Meta's defense in the landmark social media addiction trial playing out in Los Angeles right now.

The company, along with Google's YouTube, is fighting a lawsuit brought by a 20-year-old woman named Kaley (identified in court documents as K.G.M.) who claims she became addicted to social media as a child, leading to years of depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts . TikTok and Snap both settled before trial .

But here's what's striking about Meta's position: they're not really denying the core allegations. They're not saying their platforms weren't designed to maximize time spent. They're not saying they didn't target young users. They're not even saying their internal research didn't flag concerns.

Their defense boils down to something closer to a shrug: "Yeah, but her problems weren't *just* because of us."

Let me walk you through what's actually happening in this trial, what Meta is arguing, and why it matters for every parent, teen, and social media user in America.

---

## The Short Version

**What's happening:** A landmark trial is underway in Los Angeles where 20-year-old Kaley (K.G.M.) is suing Meta and Google, claiming their platforms were deliberately designed to be addictive and caused her years of mental health struggles .

**Meta's defense, in a nutshell:** "We're not responsible for her problems. She had a tough childhood. And we've added safety features." 

**The evidence against them:** Internal documents show Meta knew millions of kids under 13 were using Instagram, that executives pushed to reverse a "teen trend" decline, and that company goals explicitly targeted increasing time spent .

**Zuckerberg's testimony:** The CEO acknowledged some regret about not moving faster on age verification but defended the company's current practices, saying Meta no longer sets goals for time spent .

**The stakes:** This is a "bellwether" trial for more than 1,500 similar lawsuits. A loss could cost Meta billions and fundamentally change how platforms are designed .

---

## The Plaintiff's Case: "Digital Casinos" Designed to Hook Kids

Before we get into Meta's defense, it's worth understanding what they're defending against.

**Kaley's story:** According to court documents, Kaley started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9 . By the time she reached high school, she had posted nearly 300 videos. She allegedly spent hours daily on the platforms, sometimes as much as 16 hours straight, despite her mother's attempts to intervene .

Her lawsuit claims this led to a cascade of mental health issues: anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, eating disorders, and suicidal thoughts . She also alleges she experienced bullying and sextortion on Instagram .

**The "digital casino" argument:** Plaintiff's attorney Mark Lanier has been hammering this point throughout the trial. "The swipe, for a child, like Kaley, this motion is a handle of a slot machine," he said in his opening statement. "But every time she swipes, it's not for money, but for mental stimulation." 

The argument is that features like infinite scroll, push notifications, and algorithmic feeds are deliberately engineered to trigger dopamine hits and keep users engaged as long as possible—just like slot machines.

**The internal documents:** Lanier has presented a parade of internal Meta documents showing:

- A 2015 memo where Zuckerberg outlined goals to "reverse the teen trend" and "increase time spent by 12%" 

- A 2015 email estimating that **4 million children under 13** were already using Instagram 

- A 2017 email reading: "Mark has decided the top priority for the company is teens" 

- Research showing that features like beauty filters could increase body dysmorphia, which the company later reversed a ban on 

- Data showing that only **1.1% of teen users** actually used the daily time limit feature, suggesting the safety tools aren't effective 

**The tobacco parallels:** Lanier has explicitly invoked the tobacco litigation playbook, arguing that Meta knew about the risks, concealed them, and continued marketing to kids anyway . One attorney involved in both types of cases noted "startling" similarities, including "fighting so hard" to deny their product is addictive .

---

## Meta's Defense: A Strategic Shrug

Now let's look at what Meta is actually arguing. And honestly? It's less a vigorous defense and more of a "not our fault" shrug.

### Defense Tactic #1: "It Was Her, Not Us"

Meta's primary argument is straightforward: Kaley's mental health problems existed before social media.

**The evidence they cite:** Her medical records show a "turbulent home life." Her parents divorced when she was 3. She experienced language and physical abuse. She had strained relationships with her parents .

**Meta's lawyer Paul Schmidt** put it directly in his opening statement: "The evidence will show she faced many significant, difficult challenges well before she ever used social media." 

**The implication:** Even if Instagram didn't exist, Kaley would still have struggled. Social media was a coping mechanism, not a cause.

**Plaintiff's counter:** Lanier argues this only increases the platforms' responsibility. "You'll hear him admit, I hope, that the teen trend was declining and he ordered his teams to reverse it," Lanier said of Zuckerberg. "Not because it is good for the teens, but because it is necessary for the income."  Kids with difficult lives are actually *more* vulnerable to algorithmic manipulation, he argues.

### Defense Tactic #2: "We've Changed"

Zuckerberg's testimony leaned heavily on the idea that Meta today is different from the Meta of 2015.

**What he said:** "We have discussed various ways to develop services safe for children."  He claimed the company no longer sets goals for how long users should spend on its apps . He pointed to safety features like teen accounts, parental controls, and daily time limits .

**The problem:** Plaintiff's attorneys have introduced internal documents suggesting these features aren't widely used. That 1.1% statistic about daily time limits came from Meta's own research .

**Zuckerberg's response on age verification:** He acknowledged that some users under 13 access services despite rules prohibiting it, and expressed regret that "we always regret not making faster progress in identifying underage users." But he added that "over time, we believe the company has reached the right point." 

When pressed about expecting 9-year-olds to read fine print about age restrictions, Zuckerberg didn't have much of an answer .

### Defense Tactic #3: "Addiction Isn't the Right Word"

Instagram chief Adam Mosseri testified earlier in the trial, and his position set the stage for Zuckerberg's.

**Mosseri's argument:** He disagreed that people can be "clinically addicted" to social media. Even spending 16 hours daily scrolling can be considered "problematic" but not a clinical addiction .

**The tobacco parallel:** Attorneys note this is exactly what tobacco companies argued—that smoking was a choice, not an addiction .

**The diagnostic reality:** The American Psychiatric Association's manual doesn't list social media addiction as a disorder, defining excessive use instead as "problematic and compulsive use" . That technicality is central to Meta's defense.

### Defense Tactic #4: "We're Protected by Section 230"

This is the nuclear option in tech litigation. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has long shielded platforms from liability for what users post.

**The innovation in this case:** Plaintiffs aren't suing over *content*—they're suing over *design*. Features like infinite scroll and algorithmic feeds are platform choices, not user speech. The judge ruled that Section 230 doesn't protect companies from design liability .

**Meta's backup position:** Even with that ruling, they still argue that features like age verification and parental controls are content-based and should be protected . This is a more technical argument that may not resonate with a jury.

### Defense Tactic #5: "We're Trying Our Best"

Zuckerberg's testimony had moments of genuine humility—or at least, well-practiced humility.

**On media training:** When asked about his preparation, he said he's "well known to be bad at this" and gets "plenty of advice." The jury was shown a document titled the "Zuckerberg comms plan" advising him on how to avoid being "fake, robotic, corporate and cheesy" .

**On his motives:** When questioned about his spending habits, he pivoted to noting that he has "pledged to give almost all of my money to charity" .

**On the core philosophy:** "You should try and create something useful," he said. "And if you do, people will naturally want to use it." 

---

## The Zuckerberg Testimony: What Actually Happened

Let's focus specifically on what Zuckerberg said on the stand, because it's the centerpiece of this trial.

**Day 1 (Wednesday, February 18):**

Zuckerberg arrived at the courthouse flanked by security and was reportedly served with legal papers by a man approaching him, though he didn't respond .

Once on the stand, he faced hours of questioning from Lanier. Key exchanges included:

**On the 2015 "teen trend" memo:** Lanier presented the document where Zuckerberg wrote about wanting to "reverse the teen trend" and increase time spent by 12%. Zuckerberg acknowledged the memo but said the company no longer operates that way .

**On kids under 13:** When pressed about expecting children to read fine print about age restrictions, Zuckerberg had little to say. He acknowledged regret about not moving faster but defended the company's current position .

**On beauty filters:** Lanier questioned why Meta reversed a 2019 ban despite expert concerns about body dysmorphia. Zuckerberg called the ban "overbearing" and "paternalistic," saying there's a "high bar" for demonstrating harm .

**On time limits:** When confronted with internal data showing only 1.1% of teens used daily time limits, Zuckerberg didn't dispute the numbers .

**On priorities:** Lanier hammered on the 2017 email stating "Mark has decided the top priority for the company is teens." Zuckerberg said focusing on teens made sense for a social network, without addressing the implication that they were targeting vulnerable users .

**On philanthropy:** When asked about his spending, he brought up his Giving Pledge commitment .

Throughout, Zuckerberg kept his answers brief and didn't engage emotionally—a stark contrast to his 2024 Senate hearing apology to families .

---

## The YouTube Factor

While Meta is the headline, YouTube is also a defendant, and their defense is somewhat different.

**YouTube's position:** Lead attorney Luis Lee has argued that "the Plaintiff is not addicted to YouTube and never has been." According to him, "the data proves she spent little more than a minute a day using the very features her lawyers claim are addictive" .

**The platform distinction:** YouTube argues it's more like an entertainment platform than a social network, with different engagement dynamics .

**Upcoming testimony:** YouTube's vice president of engineering, Cristos Goodrow, is scheduled to testify .

---

## The Big Tobacco Parallel: Why This Matters

Throughout the trial, plaintiffs' attorneys have invoked the tobacco litigation of the 1990s. The parallels are striking:

**Table 1: Tobacco vs. Social Media – The Parallels**

| **Tobacco Industry** | **Social Media Industry** | **The Similarity** |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Knew cigarettes were addictive | Internal research flagged addiction risks | Concealed knowledge  |

| Marketed to teens | "Teens are top priority" emails | Targeted vulnerable populations  |

| Denied health risks | Deny clinical addiction | Fighting the label  |

| Spent heavily on lobbying | Massive lobbying presence | Using political power to block regulation  |

| Argued smokers chose freely | Argue users choose to engage | Blaming the victim |

**John Uustal**, who successfully litigated tobacco cases, said "there are startling similarities," including "fighting so hard" to deny addictiveness .

The tobacco litigation eventually forced companies to pay billions, release internal documents, and submit to regulation. Plaintiffs hope this trial could be the same turning point for social media .

---

## The Bellwether Effect: Why This One Trial Matters

This isn't just about Kaley. It's about more than 1,500 similar lawsuits consolidated in California .

**What "bellwether" means:** This case was chosen as a test run. Its outcome will heavily influence settlement negotiations and trial strategies for all the others .

**The stakes:**

- If Meta wins, the value of other cases declines 

- If Kaley wins, Meta could face billions in damages and forced platform changes 

- If the jury splits (finding one company liable but not the other), it gets complicated

**The timeline:** The trial is expected to run through the end of March .

---

## What Meta Has Already Lost (Even If They Win)

Regardless of the verdict, Meta has already suffered damage.

**Internal documents exposed:** The trial has put internal Meta communications in the spotlight—emails about targeting teens, research about harm, discussions about reversing bans on features flagged as risky .

**Public perception:** The "digital casino" framing is sticky. Parents are hearing it. Lawmakers are hearing it. The idea that social media is engineered for addiction is now mainstream.

**Regulatory momentum:** Australia banned social media for kids under 16 in late 2025. Other countries are considering similar measures . This trial adds fuel to those efforts.

**Investor uncertainty:** Meta's stock hasn't tanked, but prolonged legal exposure creates uncertainty. The company faces another trial in New Mexico over child exploitation allegations .

---

## What This Means for You

### If You're a Parent

This trial confirms what many parents have suspected: social media companies knew their platforms could be harmful to kids and designed them for maximum engagement anyway.

The "digital casino" analogy is worth taking seriously. If your child is spending hours scrolling, it's not because they lack willpower—it's because the platform is engineered to keep them there.

Consider:

- Using parental controls (though note they're not widely used)

- Setting device-free times

- Talking openly about how these platforms work

### If You're a Teen or Young Adult

You're the target. The algorithms are designed to keep you engaged. That doesn't make you weak—it makes you human. But understanding the game can help you play it on your terms.

Ask yourself: Am I using this app, or is it using me?

### If You're an Investor

Meta's legal exposure is real. A loss here could lead to billions in damages and force design changes that reduce engagement. That's bad for revenue.

But the market seems to be taking a "wait and see" approach. The real impact won't be clear until we see how other bellwether cases play out.

### If You're Just a User

This trial is a reminder that the products you use for free are still products—and you're the product. The business model is attention, and attention is maximized by keeping you scrolling.

Whether you think that's a problem or just how business works, at least now you know.

---

## Frequently Asked Questions

**Q: What exactly is Meta accused of?**

A: Meta (along with Google's YouTube) is accused of deliberately designing addictive platforms that hook young users, leading to mental health problems. The lawsuit alleges they knew about the risks and pursued growth anyway .

**Q: What's Meta's defense?**

A: Their defense has several layers: 1) The plaintiff's problems stem from her difficult childhood, not social media; 2) The company has added safety features; 3) Social media isn't clinically addictive; 4) Section 230 should protect them; 5) They're trying their best .

**Q: What did Zuckerberg say on the stand?**

A: He acknowledged some regret about not moving faster on age verification but defended current practices. He said Meta no longer sets goals for time spent. He called banning beauty filters "overbearing." He kept answers brief and didn't get emotional .

**Q: What internal documents have been shown?**

A: Documents include: a 2015 memo about reversing the "teen trend" and increasing time spent; emails estimating 4 million kids under 13 on Instagram; a 2017 email saying "the top priority for the company is teens"; research showing time limit features aren't widely used .

**Q: Why is this being compared to Big Tobacco?**

A: Like tobacco companies, Meta is accused of knowing their product could harm young people, concealing that knowledge, marketing to kids anyway, and denying addictiveness. The legal strategy is similar .

**Q: What's a "bellwether" trial?**

A: It's a test case chosen from many similar lawsuits. The outcome helps predict how other cases might resolve and influences settlement negotiations. This is the first of more than 1,500 cases .

**Q: Did TikTok and Snap settle?**

A: Yes. Both companies settled with Kaley before trial. The terms weren't disclosed. They remain defendants in other cases .

**Q: What happens if Meta loses?**

A: Meta could face significant damages—potentially billions across all the cases. The verdict could also force design changes to platforms and set precedent for future lawsuits .

**Q: What about YouTube's defense?**

A: YouTube argues it's more like an entertainment platform than a social network and that data shows the plaintiff spent little time on the features her lawyers claim are addictive .

**Q: When will we know the verdict?**

A: The trial is expected to run through the end of March. After both sides present their cases, the jury will deliberate. No specific timeline for a verdict .

---

## The Bottom Line

Here's what I keep coming back to.

Meta's defense in this trial isn't a vigorous denial. It's not a compelling alternative story. It's essentially a shrug accompanied by a muttered "not my fault."

**The core of their argument:** Kaley had problems before Instagram. Other factors contributed. We've added some features. It's complicated.

All of which may be true. But none of it directly addresses the core allegation: that the platforms were deliberately designed to maximize engagement, that executives knew teens were vulnerable, and that they pursued growth anyway.

**The internal documents** speak for themselves. "Reverse the teen trend." "Increase time spent by 12%." "Top priority for the company is teens." These aren't the words of a company focused on child safety. They're the words of a company focused on growth, regardless of the cost.

**Zuckerberg's testimony** didn't really dispute this. He said the company has changed. He pointed to new features. But he didn't deny what the documents showed.

Whether that's enough to win with a jury remains to be seen. The tobacco companies lost, eventually. But it took decades and thousands of cases.

For now, Kaley's case continues. YouTube's defense is yet to come. And more than 1,500 other plaintiffs are watching closely.

**The question the jury will answer:** Does a platform's design make it responsible when a vulnerable kid gets hurt?

Meta's answer, essentially, is: maybe, but not our problem.

We'll see if the jury agrees.

---

*Got thoughts on the trial? Following the testimony? Drop a comment and let me know.*