Lead: A 20-year-old plaintiff identified in court records as KGM (referred to as Kaley by her attorneys) testified in Los Angeles on Thursday that she used social media “all day long” as a child and now blames that early use for addiction, worsening depression and suicidal thoughts. Meta and YouTube remain the defendants in the bellwether case after TikTok and Snap settled; the jury is hearing testimony that could affect thousands of similar suits. Kaley said she began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at 9 and described how platform features and filters shaped her self-image. The trial, expected to run several weeks, will test whether companies’ product design was a substantial factor in youth mental-health harms.
Key Takeaways
- Plaintiff: The witness is a 20-year-old woman identified as KGM (Kaley) who says early platform use led to addiction and deeper depression.
- Platform timeline: Kaley testified she first used YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, and that notifications produced a daily “rush.”
- Defendants: Meta and Google-owned YouTube remain in the case; TikTok and Snap have settled out of court.
- Evidence shown: Lawyers displayed a nearly 35-foot banner of Kaley’s filtered Instagram photos and childhood posts, plus videos of her reacting to subscriber milestones.
- Home context: Testimony and cross-examination explored a turbulent family environment in Chico, California, including contested accounts of physical and emotional abuse.
- Clinical notes: A former therapist, Victoria Burke, testified in 2019 that Kaley’s social media activity and sense of self were “closely related.”
- Diagnosis and treatment: Kaley testified she has not been formally diagnosed with a social-media addiction nor treated specifically for one.
- Broader stakes: This bellwether trial could shape outcomes for thousands of similar suits alleging platforms engineered addictive features.
Background
The lawsuit is one of several coordinated actions brought by teens and young adults who say social platforms deliberately designed features that promote excessive use and harm mental health. Plaintiffs’ lawyers contend that notifications, algorithmic feeds and cosmetic filters were engineered to capture attention and reinforce appearance-based self-evaluation. Tech companies counter that millions of users benefit from their services and that individual vulnerabilities, family circumstances and preexisting conditions explain most harms.
Courts selected this case as a bellwether to provide a test of legal theories about product design, addiction and corporate responsibility; outcomes here may be used as precedent or influence settlements in broader litigation. The trial sits against a backdrop of growing regulatory scrutiny in the U.S. and abroad over platform algorithms, youth safety, and transparency about product development. Earlier cases and policy inquiries have focused on age restrictions, data collection and in-app features such as push notifications and appearance filters.
Main Event
On the stand in Los Angeles, Kaley described growing up in a cul-de-sac in Chico, California, and recounted family memories while acknowledging tension in her relationship with her mother. Defense and plaintiff attorneys each spent substantial time probing those family dynamics: plaintiffs argue Kaley was a vulnerable user preyed upon by design choices, while defense counsel say she used platforms as an escape from existing struggles. During direct testimony Kaley said her phone use was pervasive; on cross-examination she agreed that her mother had been physically and emotionally abusive during a period when she was self-harming in sixth grade.
Attorneys presented social posts and videos from Kaley’s childhood and early teens. One video clip shown to the jury captured her celebrating surpassing 100 YouTube subscribers while simultaneously apologizing about her appearance; plaintiffs used such materials to show how feedback loops and filters affected her self-image. Counsel also exhibited a long canvas banner—nearly 35 feet—displaying filtered Instagram photos Kaley posted, emphasizing how cosmetic effects were a near-constant feature of her account.
Cross-examination by Meta focused heavily on Kaley’s home life and on inconsistencies between her live testimony and prior deposition answers from 2025. Meta lawyers introduced texts and videos in which Kaley described conflicts with her mother and questioned how much those family experiences, versus platform features, contributed to her mental-health decline. Kaley acknowledged possible misstatements in the earlier deposition and reiterated that she had not been clinically diagnosed with a social-media addiction.
Analysis & Implications
The trial forces courts to address a core causal question: did design elements of social platforms materially cause addiction-like behavior and worsen mental-health outcomes for vulnerable youths? Plaintiffs must establish more than correlation; they must persuade jurors that company choices were a substantial factor in producing harm. If juries accept that argument in bellwether cases, platforms could face large damages awards or be pressured into broader settlements and product changes.
On the other hand, a defense verdict or narrow ruling could limit liability by emphasizing individual and familial factors. Meta’s strategy—highlighting Kaley’s home environment, prior bullying and other stressors—reflects an effort to distribute causal responsibility away from product design. Legal experts note that proving foreseeability and a specific design intent to addict users is legally and evidentiary challenging, especially given the many variables that affect adolescent mental health.
Beyond immediate legal outcomes, the case has policy ramifications. A finding that product features contributed materially to harm could spur legislative or regulatory action requiring design audits, transparency about recommendation systems, stricter age controls and limits on certain attention-capturing features. Conversely, a defense win could slow momentum for mandatory design changes and leave most redress to consumers and families.
Comparison & Data
| Platform | Current status in bellwether case | Notable points shown at trial |
|---|---|---|
| Meta (Instagram) | Defendant (remaining) | Focus on notifications, appearance filters; cross-examined home-life influence |
| YouTube (Google) | Defendant (remaining) | Early use from age 6; videos illustrating feedback-driven validation |
| TikTok | Settled | Reached settlement with plaintiffs prior to trial |
| Snap | Settled | Reached settlement with plaintiffs prior to trial |
The table above summarizes the procedural posture and trial themes for each platform. While settlements remove some defendants from trial exposure, outcomes for remaining defendants could still influence settlement negotiations and judicial rulings in subsequent suits.
Reactions & Quotes
Kaley’s testimony prompted empathetic reactions from the courtroom and firm statements from both parties framing the dispute differently: plaintiffs highlighted alleged product harms; defendants emphasized preexisting personal and family difficulties. Below are representative excerpts used in court, shown with context.
“I was on social media all day long.”
Kaley (plaintiff witness)
That simple claim framed plaintiffs’ argument that early and pervasive use normalized constant notification-driven engagement and contributed to worsening mood and self-image.
“The core question is whether the platforms were a substantial factor in these struggles.”
Paul Schmidt (Meta attorney)
Meta’s counsel used that line to summarize a defense theory: responsibility should hinge on demonstrated causal contribution amid other life factors.
“Her social media and her sense of self were closely related.”
Victoria Burke (former therapist)
Burke’s testimony—based on therapy notes from 2019—was offered to show a clinical observation that online interactions were tightly linked to Kaley’s mood and self-worth during treatment.
Unconfirmed
- Whether platform engineers intentionally designed features specifically to create addiction for minors remains disputed and is not conclusively proven in the record presented so far.
- Whether Kaley’s experience is representative of most young users is uncertain; plaintiffs present case-specific evidence rather than population-level causation data.
- Long-term legal and regulatory consequences across all pending suits depend on jury findings here and on subsequent appellate rulings, which are not yet determined.
Bottom Line
This bellwether trial centers on whether product design choices at major social platforms materially contributed to addiction-like behavior and deterioration in a young user’s mental health. The plaintiff’s testimony—detailing early, constant use, the perceived emotional impact of notifications and filters, and a fraught home life—illustrates the complex mix of personal vulnerability and digital stimuli at issue.
If jurors find platforms substantially responsible, the decision could prompt substantial settlements, design changes, and new regulatory pressure; an outcome favoring defendants would narrow the path for liability tied to product features and emphasize the role of individual and familial factors. Either way, the case will be watched closely as a legal and policy bellwether for how societies assign responsibility for youth well-being in the digital age.
Sources
- AP News (news) — original courtroom coverage and reporting on the bellwether trial.
- Public court records (PACER) (official) — federal docket system for filings and court documents referenced by parties and journalists.