A Los Angeles courtroom became ground zero this week for what might be the most significant legal battle facing social media companies since their creation. Dr. Anna Lembke, Stanford’s addiction medicine director and author of Dopamine Nation, just spent hours explaining to jurors why she believes Instagram and YouTube are fundamentally designed to hook children.
Her testimony wasn’t subtle. She walked the jury through what she called the four C’s of addiction: loss of control, cravings, compulsions, and consequences. Then she dropped the real bomb. Social media has “drugified” human connection itself.
When Your Brain Doesn’t Have Brakes Yet
The science Lembke presented cuts to the heart of why this case matters. Teenage brains aren’t finished cooking yet. Their prefrontal cortices, the part that says “maybe don’t do that stupid thing,” aren’t fully connected to the deeper systems that drive behavior. It’s like having a car with a powerful accelerator but faulty brakes.
This isn’t news to neuroscientists, but Lembke’s argument is that Technology companies absolutely knew this when they designed infinite scroll, autoplay, and push notifications. Features that might just be mildly annoying to adults become nearly irresistible traps for developing minds.
The plaintiff in this case, identified only as K.G.M., is now 20. She claims her childhood exposure to Instagram and YouTube led to anxiety, body dysmorphia, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts. She’s one of thousands bringing similar lawsuits, but hers was picked to go first. No pressure.
The Digital Casino Defense
Lawyer Mark Lanier isn’t pulling punches. He’s calling these platforms “digital casinos” and comparing the swipe motion to pulling a slot machine handle. The reward isn’t money but dopamine hits from likes and unexpected videos. It’s a powerful metaphor that probably makes Business executives in Menlo Park extremely uncomfortable.
Lembke backed this up with testimony about what she described as internal Meta documents. One apparently sorted vulnerable users into neat categories: adolescents, females, people with mental health challenges, and low socioeconomic status. The implication is clear. These companies knew exactly who was most at risk.
She also testified about something genuinely disturbing. When devices are taken away from addicted young people, some don’t just get upset. They become physically ill. Some become suicidal and need hospitalization. That’s not normal teenage angst. That’s withdrawal.
The “Bad Parents” Counterattack
Meta’s defense strategy is predictable but effective in its coldness. Their lawyer Paul Schmidt pointed to K.G.M.’s family history. Domestic violence at age three. Parental divorce. Feelings of abandonment. The message to jurors is obvious: this girl was damaged before she ever opened Instagram.
Schmidt noted that K.G.M. got an iPod Touch at six and received “device after device” with little parental oversight. YouTube’s lawyer Luis Li hammered the same point. If anyone’s to blame, it’s the parents who kept handing their kid screens.
It’s a legally sound argument that feels morally hollow. Yes, parents bear responsibility for their children’s wellbeing. But when 94 percent of teachers use YouTube in their lessons and these platforms are woven into the fabric of modern childhood, is it really fair to say parents should just opt out entirely?
Lembke anticipated this defense. She told jurors that troubled kids from troubled homes face challenges regardless, but addictive social media use makes everything worse. It’s not an either-or situation. Both things can be true.
What’s Actually at Stake Here
This trial isn’t binding on the thousands of other pending cases, but everyone knows it matters. If K.G.M. wins, the floodgates open wider. If she loses, other plaintiffs face an uphill battle against some of the wealthiest corporations on Earth with unlimited legal budgets.
Instagram chief Adam Mosseri testifies Wednesday. Mark Zuckerberg takes the stand next week. These aren’t depositions or written statements. They’ll be under oath, in person, answering questions about what they knew and when they knew it.
The companies have rolled out parental controls and time management features, which their lawyers are highlighting. But Lembke testified these tools are too complicated for most parents to use effectively and too easy for kids to bypass. It’s like putting a “please don’t enter” sign on a door without a lock.
What makes this case different from past moral panics about entertainment affecting kids is the sophistication of the argument. This isn’t “violent video games cause violence” territory. It’s addiction medicine, neuroscience, and internal company documents showing awareness of harm.
The defense that these are just neutral platforms where bad things sometimes happen is getting harder to maintain when features like infinite scroll and autoplay exist for one reason only: to keep eyeballs glued to screens as long as possible. That’s the business model. More time equals more ads equals more revenue.
Whether twelve jurors decide that business model constitutes negligence when applied to children might reshape how these companies operate, or at least how much it costs them not to change.
