Parents advocating for their children were resolute in asserting their presence to the CEO of Meta.
In February, approximately a dozen parents were gathered in a faintly lit corridor outside the courtroom, anxiously clutching paper tickets. Their eyes were fixed on a gray tote bag held by a court staff member — the individual who would decide, through a lottery, who gained access inside. Adorning their bags and coats were butterfly clips in memory of their lost children, whose tragedies they attribute to their online experiences. These clips served as a thoughtful symbol meant to avoid inadvertently biasing the jury, which would determine the liability of social media companies for the alleged harms their children faced. If a parent’s ticket number was drawn, they would secure one of 15 available seats to witness the jury personally. More significantly, they would come face-to-face with the individual many held responsible for their children’s tragedies: Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg, expected to testify on that day.
Those vying for the few prized wooden seats included individuals like Mary Rodee and Lori Schott, just two among a multitude of parent advocates who traveled to witness a pivotal social media trial, the concluding arguments of which unfolded today. While this specific case centers on the supposedly addictive nature of Instagram and YouTube, the parents were compelled to engage due to a much broader scope of issues, having lost children to suicide, choking challenges, and accidental overdoses they believe were enabled or worsened by online platforms. Some attending parents had initiated their own legal actions against these companies. More trials are slated to occur later this year.
When a court staff member drew a ticket number that matched one from the crowd, the atmosphere shifted to one of elation. Throughout this ritual over several days, the reactions were notably similar: one mother gasped in surprise while another joyfully danced down the hallway to claim her badge. The parents collectively cheered on several occasions when numbers were announced, until told by the court staff to hold back their enthusiasm.
Then, unexpectedly, Zuckerberg strode through the gathering. With his face expressionless and focused, he seemed like a mere head among his imposing entourage. The room quieted as realization swept through the crowd recognizing who was passing by. Within moments, he turned the corner towards the courtroom, and chatter resumed.
Rodee, whose son Riley Basford tragically took his own life at 15 after being reportedly targeted for sextortion via Facebook, later recounted how she spotted Zuckerberg due to his unmistakable curly reddish hair. “One aspect that frustrates me is the curly hair,” Rodee shared. “Riley had adorably curly hair. And I wish I could shave his hair because he certainly does not deserve it.”
In recent weeks, a jury in Los Angeles has been presented with arguments in a social media lawsuit filed by a now 20-year-old woman known as K.G.M., or Kaley. She provided testimony that the supposedly addictive design of these platforms caused her to engage with social media “all day,” ultimately contributing to feelings of hopelessness and body image disorders.
Meta and Google are contesting the allegations that their products were negligently constructed to ensnare users like Kaley and lead to detrimental mental health outcomes. They argue that it is in their best interest to cultivate positive user experiences, and that other factors in Kaley’s life contributed to her mental health difficulties, for which their platforms provided an escape. (Snap and TikTok were also involved as defendants but settled their cases before the trial commenced.) This is the inaugural case of several “bellwether” trials that may shape how thousands of similar lawsuits are approached, affecting not only financial outcomes but the long-established business practices of these companies.
Deliberations among the jury are anticipated to start on Friday, although the duration remains uncertain. They are responsible for deciding if each company exhibited negligence in their product designs and whether this negligence substantially contributed to Kaley’s mental health issues. If they rule in her favor, they will also assess the compensation. While a favorable outcome for Kaley primarily signifies financial remuneration, Matthew Bergman, the founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center representing her, emphasized that the overarching goal of these cases is to impose financial strain on companies so they “internalize safety costs and make it less profitable for Meta and YouTube to design, maintain, and benefit from hazardous products rather than safe ones.”
Parent advocates such as Rodee and Schott are aware that a victory against social media corporations is not assured. Regardless of the outcome in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, they aspire to triumph in the public sphere. Throughout the initial days of the trial, they shared their children’s narratives repeatedly with journalists and even the lead plaintiff’s attorney in the case, Mark Lanier, as he exited the courthouse. “We require awareness. We need to exert public pressure on our legislators to ask if we can work towards saving all these American children,” expressed Annie McGrath, whose son Griffin — affectionately known as Bubba — died at 13 after attempting a choking challenge he is believed to have learned from a YouTube clip.
Kaley’s ability to succeed or fail rests on persuading a jury that social media platforms can be held accountable for their design features, even when they offer user-generated content typically protected by Section 230. If the jury concludes that Meta and Google bear responsibility for the harm experienced by Kaley, it could ultimately inform a wider resolution for over 1,500 analogous cases, some filed by attending parents. However, this is far from assured. Many lawsuits allege that social media firms designed unlawfully “defective” products. Section 230 has dismissed many of these suits before reaching the trial phase — but not all. In 2021, for example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Snap could face litigation for implementing speed filters that allegedly incited dangerous driving behavior among a young user, even if the filter was based on users’ own speed data.
Both Meta and YouTube have denied the claims in Kaley’s lawsuit. “We categorically disagree with these claims and are confident that evidence will reveal our long-standing commitment to supporting youth,” stated Meta spokesperson Andy Stone. The company has established a website focused on teen safety to counter the allegations surrounding many of the cases. “Delivering a safer and healthier experience for young people has consistently been central to our mission,” remarked YouTube spokesperson José Castañeda in a prior statement.
Many parents were keenly interested in hearing Zuckerberg’s testimony. While he has appeared multiple times in Congress, facing rapid-fire questions from lawmakers, “Now in front of a jury, he isn’t confronted by politicians who are also in bed with Big Tech,” said Brandy Roberts, whose daughter Englyn died by suicide at 14 after her parents assert she imitated a video she viewed on Instagram. “We know jurors cannot be bought.”
Nothing Zuckerberg might state could revive their children, but should they manage to maintain pressure on the platforms to enact new safety measures, or educate other parents on the potential hazards their children may encounter online, they would brave the unseasonably cold and rainy conditions in Los Angeles all day long.
The case has provided a rare opportunity to reveal information that the companies would prefer remain private. Evidence presented during Zuckerberg’s testimony, for instance, indicated that Meta lifted a temporary prohibition on certain third-party Instagram filters that could alter users’ appearances, albeit not promoted by the company. Internal communications revealed that some executives were concerned about this action and expressed worries about its potential to foster body dysmorphia in teenage girls. “We were one of those families who kept a close watch,” said Roberts. “We had access to our children’s phones, monitored their usage, and yet we were unaware of many details disclosed in the internal court documents.”
Mothers I conversed with outside the courthouse expressed that simply having the trial occur feels like a victory. “It’s surreal to realize we’ve reached this point after fighting for so long,” reflected Amy Neville, whose son Alexander succumbed to fentanyl poisoning allegedly fueled by Snapchat nearly six years prior. “This moment, which we were told could never happen, is overwhelming to consider.”
“I continually describe the situation as oxymoronic,” Rodee shared, including “justice and injustice, all at once.”
“Riley will never return. What do I honestly expect to happen to Zuckerberg?” she pondered. “Consequently, it’s vital to remember that this represents a significant advancement. Presenting these documents to a jury is what they mocked us for when our children died.”
Regardless of whether they secured a seat inside, the parent advocates maximized their opportunity to promote awareness. Before the lottery system was established, parents stood vigil outside overnight in the rain awaiting the chance to see Instagram head Adam Mosseri, enduring sleepless nights filled with card games and sharing stories to make it to morning. The week prior, they participated in demonstrations, including unveiling a memorial featuring large-scale smartphones displaying their children’s images, and painting the names of children allegedly harmed by Snapchat on the street outside the company’s Los Angeles office. Roberts recalled experiencing a moment of silence at one event, remarking that it “hits you deep” to stand outside the courthouse, knowing the doors are finally open, yet your child is not there to witness the progress.
All parents conveyed a profound sense of community and shared understanding. Many had informal but perhaps unspoken agreements about prioritizing who should secure entry into the courthouse based on whether their case was filed there or if their child faced harm specifically on Meta’s platforms. “Now every child feels like my child, especially among my grief friends,” Rodee expressed. “That’s another oxymoron, isn’t it? We would forsake these friendships just to have our kids back.”
Some parents took solace in the thought that Zuckerberg had to pass through the public entrance’s metal detectors like everyone else. Many of the attendees had previously seen him when he testified before the Senate in 2024. At that time, prompted by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), he turned around to apologize to them, each holding images of their departed children. A few later described that moment as “insincere.”
Witnessing him in court was both reminiscent and distinct. “I suspect he wore a new expensive suit, yet he appeared unchanged,” Rodee noted. “He’s shorter than expected,” McGrath added.
Deb Schmill, whose daughter Becca passed away at 18 from fentanyl poisoning after allegedly acquiring drugs through social media, “desperately wished” to enter the courtroom on the day Zuckerberg testified, but her ticket was not drawn. “I was severely disappointed. I don’t often cry. I was nearly in tears at the thought of missing it,” she confided outside the courthouse. Despite this, being in such close proximity to the CEO contrasted sharply with her experience seated in the Senate committee room during his congressional testimony. “I hope I never have to be that close to him again,” she expressed. “It feels surreal to see the individual who made decisions that adversely affected your child and numerous other children.”
Parents braved their discomfort to ensure Zuckerberg recognized their presence. “I wanted him to meet my gaze,” Schott shared, whose daughter Annalee lost her life at 18 by suicide after struggling with body image issues reportedly worsened by constant exposure to social media posts. “Typically, I’m the teary one, yet I wanted him to look at me and see Mary, and truly understand that we are here. I desperately hoped he realized, ‘Oh no, the parents are here.’”
For some, the greater challenge was not being present at the trial. “I was unable to attend last week, and my emotional state suffered at home. You can confirm with my daughter; I was pacing around declaring, ‘I need to be there,’” McGrath recounted outside the courthouse during the second week of the trial. McGrath displayed a recurring reminder that alerts her daily after work to report the choking game video to YouTube. She indicated it usually requires her about 10 minutes to identify around 50 videos that she reports to the platform. “I doubt anyone ever reviews them.”
Brandy and Toney Roberts attended to raise awareness regarding the dangers they believe their daughter Englyn faced on social media. “Coming from a small town in Louisiana, we want our daughter to be remembered,” Brandy expressed. “It’s vital to showcase her face and inform the world that this issue knows no bounds… It discriminates not based on age or religion. It poses a threat to all of our children. To give names to real faces and demonstrate to the CEOs of these Big Tech companies that our children did exist and they hold significance for us.”
Outside the courtroom on the eve of Zuckerberg’s testimony, Lanier, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, circled a group of mothers while holding their hands and inquiring about their children and their experiences. Throughout the week, several parents also shared stories of their kids: Becca “bestowed the most heartfelt hugs imaginable,” according to her mother, Schmill. Schott’s Annalee was “a lovely, rural girl who was never a troublemaker, adoring community service and life on the farm.” Riley would amuse his mother, Rodee, by surprising her from around corners or blasting music in the car while dancing and singing.
“I pray for your healing,” Lanier, who also serves as a pastor, quietly prayed, standing among the circle of parents holding hands and nodding intently. “And Lord, grant our team the courage to fight for you, for justice, and for the hearts and souls of countless children neglected for profit.”
Court proceedings wrapped up early that day after both sides agreed to pause the schedule to assess whether a juror hospitalized that morning would recover in time to return. The attorneys were concerned about potential “jury run-off” — too many jurors finding reasons to withdraw from the trial — once they witnessed the most prominent witness testify the following day.
In addition to the juror’s hospitalization, the trial has faced a series of unfortunate events. Jury selection was halted for several days initially due to Meta’s chief attorney, Paul Schmidt, sustaining a concussion. Subsequently, the trial had to relocate to another building following water damage from a leak at the courthouse. These incidents disrupted the planned schedule for top executives, including Zuckerberg and YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, who ultimately did not testify.
The day Zuckerberg testified, the courtroom was packed with lawyers, the public, and media — it was challenging to envision how much more cramped it would have been with Snap and TikTok also present. Lanier’s sermon-like style shone through during the questioning, his charismatic flair contrasting with Zuckerberg’s straightforward demeanor, sometimes provoking visible unease in the Meta CEO.
Lanier recapped in his Southern drawl Zuckerberg’s earlier testimony. Despite Zuckerberg claiming that Meta ceased setting goals to boost user time on its platforms, he noted that the company still established milestones as of 2022 to enhance product usage. Zuckerberg accused Lanier of “mischaracterizing” the situation, asserting that these “milestones” were merely a “gut check” relayed to senior management, while workers received “goals” that did not include increasing time spent.
While questioning more amicable witnesses, Lanier infused his queries with personal inquiries regarding their interests (for instance, a former Meta advertising executive Brian Boland is a passionate beekeeper, and expert witness John Chandler, an Ultimate Frisbee champion). He maintained a keen focus on the jury, enthusiastic about retaining their attention. In contrast to a bench trial, where the judge is well-versed in legalities (and compensated to be in attendance), attorneys must simplify their messaging for laypersons. After the judge denied his proposal to adjust the timeline so he wouldn’t have to present his expert in data science during an afternoon slump, Lanier elevated his energy levels even further. “For an engaging afternoon, we figured a bit of math would be fitting,” he announced to introduce Chandler. Lanier lavished personal interest on Chandler’s life, inquiring about his 5-year-old (“yes, we have a 5-year-old border collie mix,” Chandler responded, eliciting laughter), and exclaiming, “Goodness, I almost forgot you’re a world champion!” to allow him to elaborate on his Frisbee achievements.
In addressing exhibits, Lanier opted to display notes and sketches using a projector reminiscent of those found in elementary schools. He showcased Boland’s critiques of Meta, and the allegedly authoritarian “Zuckerberg Mandate” that he illustrated by drawing a roadmap outlining the trajectory of Boland’s testimony.
In responding to the case, the companies have argued that various factors in Kaley’s life influenced her mental health, asserting that social media addiction is not a clinical designation. Mosseri testified that spending 16 hours a day on the app reflected merely “problematic use.” “I’ve likely described myself as ‘addicted’ to a Netflix series after binge-watching late at night, yet I don’t view it on the same level as clinical addiction,” he stated during another portion of his testimony, according to the BBC. YouTube’s VP of engineering, Cristos Goodrow, indicated that constant user scrolling signals an issue for the business, implying that its recommendation systems were not functioning as intended, as reported by NTD News.
During their defense, the companies aimed to discredit any suggestion of a causal relationship between their services and Kaley’s challenges. They’ve summoned witnesses to testify about Kaley’s offline difficulties, while Google argued she spent an average of only 30 minutes daily on YouTube.
Although social media addiction is not recognized as an official diagnosis, organizations like the American Psychiatric Association acknowledge that “problematic and compulsive use of social media” could be tackled through cognitive behavioral therapy. Its effects are less clear-cut compared to substance addictions, like nicotine. Moderate use of social media has been associated with positive effects on users’ well-being, with some studies indicating that going through a “digital detox” does not yield withdrawal symptoms typical of drugs. In this trial, social media compulsions have indeed been likened to gambling addictions, which are classified as behavioral addictions in the DSM-5.
Parents around the courthouse communicated to me their concerns regarding their children’s excessive attachment to their phones and the hidden dangers they face. Schott recalled locking her daughter’s phone in the car to restrict her access. Julianna Arnold remembered her daughter, Coco — who succumbed to fentanyl poisoning at 17 after attempting to acquire a Percocet from someone she allegedly met on Instagram — contesting her for the phone, “as if not having it in her hand would prevent her from sleeping.”
While the parents attribute the harm to social media platforms, they also recognize parental responsibility. “People often say, ‘It’s the parents’ fault,’ and I’m not disputing that,” Schott acknowledged. “Absolutely, it is, but I did everything possible. However, playing Whac-a-Mole with the phone and my child’s compulsion to engage with social media was unlike anything I’ve encountered before.” They seek to educate other parents about potential risks and encourage them to inform themselves and their children. “Parents may think, ‘My child would never do that.’ For Griffin, the thought of him choking himself was unimaginable,” McGrath stated. “But yes, they would… The prefrontal cortex doesn’t fully develop until around 25, which affects impulse control and the realization that ‘I might actually die’ hasn’t even occurred to them.”
The jury might not need to weigh in on whether their children’s behavior represents clinical addiction. To succeed, Kaley’s lawyers need solely to convince them that the products inflicted substantial harm, and that Meta and Google failed in their duty to prevent it or to warn users about potential risks. “Addiction constitutes one potential danger,” said Neama Rahmani, a personal injury attorney and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers who is not affiliated with these social media cases. Nevertheless, it has been the main focus here since proving causation for other types of mental harm is far more challenging. “Many individuals experience mental health problems for multiple reasons,” Rahmani noted. Jess Nall, an attorney at Withers uninvolved in the cases, commented, “While legally the jury doesn’t need to establish clinical addiction as a formal legal element, the plaintiffs’ primary theory arguably hinges on providing evidence close to it.”
One particular Meta product did present a tangible risk to the actual legal proceedings: its camera-equipped Ray-Ban glasses. After members of Zuckerberg’s entourage were observed wearing what looked like the smart glasses, Judge Carolyn Kuhl informed the courtroom that no one should be donning them, and if they had recorded anything, it should be deleted. The potential for recordings wasn’t the only concern; Kuhl removed Bergman, an attorney for Kaley, from the steering committee associated with the larger group of bellwether cases following his recording of a BBC interview within the courthouse, in breach of the court’s electronics protocol.
As the day unfolded, Zuckerberg did not directly address the parents present at the courthouse. He seemed to deliberately focus straight ahead as he made his way inside and left the witness stand without ceremony after his lengthy testimony. A few parents believed they made eye contact with him while he entered — and whether or not this was the case, they felt confident he sensed their presence.
Zuckerberg’s appearance marked only the beginning of a lengthy struggle. This single trial has stretched over five weeks, and since his testimony, the jury has since listened to a former employee from YouTube’s VP of engineering and Kaley herself. After this jury concludes deliberations — no matter the verdict — the court will soon progress to the following case in this series of so-called bellwether trials.
While some question why they endure the heartache of relaying their stories repeatedly, Toney Roberts explained, “We live the reality each day. So if sharing can prevent another family from experiencing this or help protect another child from this outcome, we hope to unite and raise awareness, as we’ve endeavored to do globally.”
