February 10, 2026 – Tuesday – Los Angeles — In a closely watched courtroom in Los Angeles on Tuesday, a landmark trial opened that could have sweeping implications for the U.S. tech industry. Lawyers for families and young plaintiffs took aim at major social media companies, including Meta and YouTube, alleging that the platforms were deliberately engineered to “addict” children and harm their mental health.
The case, which many legal analysts call one of the most consequential tech lawsuits in recent memory, began in Los Angeles County Superior Court with a series of sharp opening statements that set the tone for what could be weeks of contentious testimony. The plaintiffs’ legal team — led by high‑profile attorney Mark Lanier — accused Silicon Valley giants of designing algorithmic features calculated to keep young users engaged for extended periods, despite known risks to their emotional and psychological well‑being.
“This case is about two of the richest corporations in history who have engineered addiction in children’s brains,” Lanier told jurors, invoking vivid imagery and analogies that drew comparisons to landmark tobacco litigation in the late 20th century.
At the heart of the case are claims brought by a 20‑year‑old woman referred to in court documents as Kayley G.M., who contends that her prolonged use of platforms like YouTube and Instagram from a very young age contributed to anxiety, depression, and other mental health challenges. Attorneys argue that these companies intentionally crafted features — from endless scroll and autoplay functions to psychologically tailored rewards systems — knowing that they would keep younger users hooked.
Legal scholars and child psychologists have noted that the case could set a precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits that are pending in cities and state courts across the country. The opening proceedings Tuesday revealed the depth of scientific research and social science evidence that plaintiffs plan to introduce, as well as the defensive strategies tech companies intend to deploy.
In his opening remarks, Lanier emphasized design choices that resemble mechanisms used in gambling and addiction psychology. He reminded the jury that bringing children back to the platform repeatedly — whether through notifications or algorithmic predictions — served corporate financial goals.
Representatives for Meta and YouTube, while condemning the notion that they intentionally harm users, countered that mental health is a multifaceted issue with numerous contributing factors. In statements submitted to the court, company attorneys attributed challenges faced by youth to societal pressures, family dynamics, and non‑platform influences, arguing that social media platforms provide valuable spaces for creativity and connection when used responsibly.
The defendants also stressed that existing safeguards — such as content filters, age restrictions, and parental controls — demonstrate their commitment to protecting younger users. Nonetheless, jurors will be asked to consider whether those safeguards were insufficient and whether companies failed to warn parents about the risks associated with prolonged engagement.
Central to Tuesday’s proceedings was the question of intent. Did these companies knowingly design addictive algorithms? Or were harmful effects an unintended consequence of products that were created for broad global audiences?
Experts and advocates following the case said Tuesday’s testimony could shed light on internal practices and communications within some of the world’s most powerful tech firms. Reports suggest that executives, including Meta’s CEO and senior product leaders, may be called to testify in later phases of the trial.
Child welfare advocates have hailed the proceedings as a long‑overdue reckoning, especially as research continues to highlight rising rates of teen anxiety, depression, and other psychological issues that coincide with increased smartphone and social media use.
However, civil liberties groups warn of potential unintended consequences if the courts impose strict liabilities on design choices, arguing such a move could stifle innovation or lead platforms to adopt overly restrictive policies that limit expression.
As the trial continues through this week and beyond, stakeholders on all sides will scrutinize every development. What happens in this Los Angeles courtroom could reshape the relationship between technology, youth, and legal accountability in the United States for years to come.
