LOS ANGELES (BP) – Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended his company’s Instagram platform last week during a landmark trial examining whether social media is intentionally addictive and harmful to young people, as a wave of lawsuits alleging such harm gains momentum. The case, brought by a young woman identified as “K.G.M.” and several school districts, centers on claims that prolonged exposure to platforms like Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok led to addiction and associated physical and emotional distress.
Snapchat and TikTok reached settlements in January, but Zuckerberg’s testimony marked a pivotal moment in the legal challenge. He pushed back against assertions that Instagram was designed to exploit vulnerabilities in young users. Plaintiffs point to internal Meta documents, revealed during the trial, where researchers reportedly likened Instagram to “a drug” and described the company as “pushers,” according to court filings.
A TikTok report cited in the case stated that “minors do not have executive mental function to control their screen time,” while Snapchat executives allegedly acknowledged that users experience an “addiction [with] no room for anything else.” These internal assessments are central to the argument that the companies were aware of the potential for harm and prioritized engagement over user well-being.
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of “The Anxious Generation,” has become a prominent voice in the debate surrounding social media’s impact on youth. Speaking on a recent podcast, Haidt argued that the harm extends beyond mental illness to a broader “destruction of the human ability to pay attention.” He cited TikTok reports indicating that “compulsive usage correlates with a slew of mental health effects like loss of analytical skill, memory formation, contextual thinking, conversational depth, empathy and increased anxiety,” and that it “interferes with personal responsibilities like sufficient sleep, work/school responsibilities and connecting with loved ones.”
The current case is one of three consolidated under JCCP 5255, with subsequent trials scheduled for March 9 and May 11. These legal battles unfold against a backdrop of increasing legislative scrutiny. Twenty states have already enacted laws addressing social media and children, and Australia has taken the unprecedented step of banning social media access for individuals under 16, with Denmark and France reportedly considering similar measures.
The legal challenges are prompting a wider discussion about the role of technology in society and parental responsibility. Jared Cooney Horvath, a neuroscientist, recently told Congress that Gen Z is the first generation to demonstrate lower cognitive abilities than previous generations at the same age, attributing this decline primarily to increased screen time. He suggested a correlation between the adoption of widespread one-to-one technology in schools and a plateauing, then decline, in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data.
Haidt, in comments to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, asserted that tech leaders were fully aware of the addictive nature of their platforms. “They knew… that they were addicting kids,” he said. “The program was designed to be addictive. Instagram was designed to be addictive. They know they are addicting kids [and] they reward their engineers for increasing engagement.”
The case is drawing comparisons to the legal battles waged against the tobacco industry, with some observers labeling it “Big Tech’s Big Tobacco Moment.” The trials are expected to continue, with the next hearing scheduled for March 9.
