Addiction by Design: The Landmark Case Against Meta and Google

Abstract

In February 2026, the Superior Court of Los Angeles became the epicenter of a defining legal confrontation of the digital age: Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255. This landmark bellwether trial, pitting a twenty-year-old plaintiff against Meta Platforms and Google, represents the culmination of a decade-long sociopolitical struggle regarding the influence of algorithmic recommendation systeqms on human development. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the proceedings, colloquially known as the "Zuckerberg Social Media Addiction Trial." It meticulously dissects the transition of legal strategy from content-based grievances to product liability claims, the neuroscientific arguments underpinning the concept of "addiction by design," and the evidentiary revelations concerning internal corporate knowledge. By synthesizing the testimony of key executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram Head Adam Mosseri, with forensic analysis of internal documents like "Project Myst," this article serves as a definitive academic record of the moment the "attention economy" was called to account.

I. Introduction: The Tobacco Moment of the Information Age Through Meta & Google

On the morning of February 18, 2026, the air outside the Spring Street Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles was thick with a tension that transcended the usual spectacle of high-profile litigation.¹ A vigil of parents, clutching framed photographs of children lost to suicide and self-harm, lined the perimeter—a somber visual echo of the anti-tobacco protests that besieged courthouses in the late 20th century.² Inside, Mark Zuckerberg, the architect of the modern social internet, prepared to face a jury not as a visionary, but as a defendant accused of engineering a public health crisis.³

The trial in question, a "bellwether" case selected from a massive consolidation of over 1,600 lawsuits, centered on the claims of a young woman identified in court documents as K.G.M., or "Kaley".³ Her legal team, led by the formidable Mark Lanier, alleged that the design of Instagram and YouTube—specifically features like infinite scroll, auto-play, and algorithmic reward schedules—exploited the neurobiology of her developing brain to foster compulsive use, leading to a cascade of mental health degradation including depression, anorexia, and suicidal ideation.³

This was not merely a dispute over one individual’s suffering. It was a structural challenge to the fundamental business model of Silicon Valley. Unlike previous legal skirmishes that shattered against the shield of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, this trial advanced a novel legal theory: that social media platforms are not just publishers of speech, but manufacturers of a "defective product".⁷ The distinction is subtle but profound. The plaintiffs argued that the harm arose not from what was said on the platform, but from how the platform was constructed to function—specifically, that it was engineered to override the self-regulation mechanisms of the adolescent brain.³

As the trial unfolded, it laid bare the internal machinations of Meta and Google. Documents like the "Project Myst" study and the "Tweens" presentation revealed a corporate apparatus acutely aware of its psychological impact yet seemingly paralyzed by the imperative of growth.⁹ The proceedings offered a rare, subpoena-enforced glimpse into the "black box" of algorithmic design, forcing a public reckoning with the ethical boundaries of persuasive technology.

II. The Legal Architecture: From Section 230 to Product Liability

To comprehend the magnitude of JCCP 5255, one must first navigate the legal fortress that has protected the technology sector for thirty years: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The evolution of this statute, and the plaintiff’s innovative circumvention of it, forms the jurisprudential backbone of the trial.

The Erosion of the Immunity Shield

Enacted at the dawn of the commercial internet, Section 230 provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." For decades, this twenty-six-word phrase acted as an impenetrable shield for platforms. If a user posted defamatory content, instructions for self-harm, or terrorist propaganda, the platform itself could not be held liable.⁸

However, the legal strategy employed in the Los Angeles trial pivoted away from content entirely. The plaintiffs argued that the design features of the apps—the mechanisms of delivery rather than the payload of the message—constituted "negligent design" and "failure to warn" under standard product liability laws.⁷ This approach likens social media apps to physical products like automobiles or pharmaceuticals. Just as a car manufacturer is liable if a brake system is designed to fail, the plaintiffs contended that Meta is liable if its "engagement architecture" is designed to cause compulsive use that results in injury.⁶

The "Defective Product" Theory in the Digital Realm

The core of the legal argument rested on the assertion that the platforms contained specific "design defects" that rendered them unreasonably dangerous to their intended users: minors. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, presiding over the coordination proceeding, allowed these claims to proceed by distinguishing between "publishing activity" (protected by Section 230) and "product design" (unprotected conduct).¹²

The specific features targeted as defects included:

• The Infinite Scroll: A mechanism that eliminates natural "stopping cues," theoretically creating a state of continuous consumption analogous to a slot machine that never forces the player to cash out or insert more coins.³

• Algorithmic Reward Schedules: The use of variable ratio reinforcement (discussed in detail in Section III) to maximize dopamine prediction error.¹³

• Ephemeral Content: Features like "Stories" that disappear after 24 hours, which plaintiffs argued create an artificial scarcity and "Fear of Missing Out" (FOMO), compelling daily, ritualistic engagement.⁸

• Lack of Age Gating: The failure to implement effective age verification despite knowledge of millions of underage users.¹⁰

By framing these features as functional components of a machine rather than editorial choices, the plaintiffs successfully brought the case before a jury, a feat that had eluded privacy advocates and content moderators for years.¹⁵

The Bellwether Mechanism

The trial of K.G.M. v. Meta et al. was designated as a "bellwether" case. In mass tort litigation, where thousands of plaintiffs file similar claims (in this case, over 1,600 families and school districts), courts select a small number of representative cases to go to trial first.³ The outcomes of these trials allow both sides to gauge how juries react to the evidence and arguments, typically setting the "market value" for a potential global settlement.

Notably, just days before opening statements, two of the original defendants—TikTok (ByteDance) and Snapchat (Snap Inc.)—reached confidential settlements with the plaintiff.¹⁷ This strategic exit left Meta and Google (YouTube) as the sole defendants. Legal analysts suggest that the younger platforms, whose business models are even more dependent on aggressive algorithmic curation than the legacy social networks, likely viewed the risk of a public dissection of their proprietary code as an existential threat.¹⁹ Their departure focused the jury's attention squarely on the Silicon Valley incumbents, allowing the plaintiffs to construct a narrative spanning the entire childhood of the plaintiff, Kaley, who began using YouTube at age six.³

III. The Neuroscience of Engagement: A Deep Dive into the "Digital Casino"

If the legal argument provided the framework for the trial, the scientific testimony provided its emotional and intellectual core. The plaintiffs sought to prove that "social media addiction" is not a colloquialism for bad habits, but a physiological reality rooted in the neurochemistry of the developing brain.

The Dopamine-Driven Feedback Loop

Dr. Anna Lembke, a renowned psychiatrist from Stanford University and author of Dopamine Nation, served as the plaintiff’s primary expert witness on addiction medicine. Her testimony offered the jury a granular explanation of how digital platforms interact with the brain’s mesolimbic reward pathway.²⁰

The Mesolimbic Pathway and "Druggification"

Lembke explained that the brain’s reward system evolved to reinforce behaviors essential for survival, such as eating and procreation. This pathway connects the Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA), which produces dopamine, to the Nucleus Accumbens, the brain's pleasure center, and the Prefrontal Cortex, responsible for decision-making.²¹

Social media, Lembke testified, "druggifies" human connection.²⁰ In the natural world, social interaction is complex, slow, and fraught with ambiguity. On social media, interaction is quantified, immediate, and high-contrast. By stripping away the nuance and delivering social validation in the form of bright red notifications and numerical counts, platforms create a "supernormal stimulus" that hijacks this ancient evolutionary mechanism.²¹

Variable Ratio Reinforcement: The Skinner Box

A central pillar of the scientific argument was the application of B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning research to modern UI design. Skinner discovered that lab animals pressed a lever for food most compulsively not when the reward was guaranteed (Fixed Ratio), but when it was unpredictable (Variable Ratio).²³

The plaintiffs argued that the "pull-to-refresh" mechanism is the digital equivalent of a slot machine lever. When a user refreshes their feed, they do not know what they will get: a boring update, a distressing news story, or a highly stimulating "like" or viral video.

• Reward Prediction Error (RPE): Dopamine neurons fire most intensely when a reward is unexpected.²⁵

• The "Seeking" System: This unpredictability keeps the dopamine system in a state of chronic activation, or "seeking," compelling the user to continue scrolling in pursuit of the next hit, even when the experience is no longer pleasurable.¹³

Lembke described this as the transition from "liking" (the hedonic impact of the reward) to "wanting" (the motivational drive to obtain it). In addiction, "wanting" hypersensitizes while "liking" diminishes, trapping the user in a cycle of compulsive pursuit without satisfaction.²²

The Adolescent Brain: A Developmental Mismatch

The scientific narrative was further refined by focusing on the specific vulnerability of adolescents. Expert testimony highlighted the "developmental mismatch" theory, which posits a temporal gap in the maturation of two key brain systems:

1. The Limbic System: Responsible for emotion and reward processing. In adolescents, this system is hypersensitive, making social feedback and dopamine release feel significantly more intense than in adults.²²

2. The Prefrontal Cortex (PFC): Responsible for impulse control, long-term planning, and executive function. This region is not fully myelinated—insulated for speed and efficiency—until the mid-twenties.²⁶

The plaintiffs argued that tech companies exploited this "biological gap." By targeting "tweens" (ages 10-12) and teens, the platforms introduced a high-dopamine stimulus to a brain that possessed a "high-performance engine" (the limbic system) but "weak brakes" (the PFC).²⁸

The Shift from Positive to Negative Reinforcement

Crucially, the testimony detailed the progression of addiction. While early use is driven by the pursuit of pleasure (positive reinforcement), late-stage addiction is driven by the avoidance of pain (negative reinforcement).²²

• Process A (Initial Euphoria): The dopamine spike from early engagement.

• Process B (Opponent Process): The brain’s homeostatic response to downregulate dopamine receptors, leading to a state of dopamine deficit (dysphoria, anxiety, irritability) when not using the app.²²

Lembke argued that K.G.M.’s usage pattern—starting at age six and escalating through adolescence—mirrored this trajectory. Her excessive scrolling was no longer about finding fun videos; it was a desperate attempt to self-soothe the anxiety caused by the dopamine deficit the apps themselves had created.²⁰

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of "Addictive" Features vs. Traditional Media

Feature	Traditional Media (TV/Books)	Social Media (Instagram/TikTok/Shorts)	Neurobiological Impact
Ending Cues	Chapters, Credits, End of Show	None (Infinite Scroll)	Removes "stopping cues," preventing prefrontal cortex "brake" engagement and decision-making.3
Reward Schedule	Fixed (Plot resolution)	Variable Ratio (Unpredictable content)	Maximizes Dopamine Prediction Error; maintains "seeking" behavior indefinitely.13
Social Feedback	None / Passive	Quantified (Likes, Views, Comments)	Triggers social comparison and limbic system hypersensitivity, specifically in the nucleus accumbens.22
Stimulus Speed	Narrative pacing (minutes/hours)	Rapid-fire (15-60 sec loops)	Reduces attention span; creates habituation to high-stimulation environments.20
Access Barriers	Location-bound (Living room/Theater)	Ubiquitous (Smartphone)	Enables 24/7 access, disrupting sleep architecture and circadian rhythms.3

IV. The Evidence: "Project Myst" and the Corporate Black Box

If neuroscience provided the theory of the crime, the internal documents unearthed during discovery provided the intent. The trial produced a trove of internal communications from Meta and Google that the plaintiffs characterized as a "smoking gun," revealing a disconnect between the companies' public safety assurances and their private knowledge.

Project Myst: The Myth of Parental Control

One of the most damaging pieces of evidence presented by lead counsel Mark Lanier was a Meta internal study titled "Project Myst".⁹ Conducted in partnership with the University of Chicago, this confidential study surveyed 1,000 teenagers and their parents regarding social media habits and control mechanisms.

The findings of Project Myst were stark and directly contradicted Meta’s public defense strategy:

1. Inefficacy of Supervision: The study concluded that parental supervision tools—such as time limits, dashboards, and app restrictions—had "little impact" on a teen’s ability to control their compulsive usage.²⁹

2. Vulnerability Factors: It identified that children who had experienced "adverse life events"—such as trauma, family instability, or bullying—were significantly more vulnerable to developing addictive behaviors.²⁹

Lanier argued that Meta suppressed these findings to protect its business model. While publicly touting their "robust parental supervision tools" as the ultimate solution to teen safety ³², privately, the company knew these tools were functionally ineffective against the psychological force of their algorithms. "The moment Kaley was locked into the machine, her mom was locked out," Lanier told the jury, using the study to dismantle the defense's argument that parental responsibility was the primary failure point.³⁴

The "Tweens" Strategy: Targeting the Vulnerable

The trial also scrutinized Meta’s aggressive pursuit of younger users, challenging the company’s assertion that it does not target children. Lanier displayed an internal Instagram presentation from 2018 with the header: "If we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens".¹⁰

Mark Zuckerberg, on the witness stand, attempted to deflect the implications of this document, claiming it was being "mischaracterized" and that the company had "different conversations over time" about building safe, age-appropriate versions of their services.¹⁰ However, the document stood in stark contrast to Instagram’s Terms of Service, which require users to be at least 13 years old.

Further evidence compounded this issue. Internal documents estimated that over 4 million underage users were active on Instagram.¹⁴ When questioned, Zuckerberg admitted that enforcement tools had "evolved" but acknowledged that "some underage users still bypass age checks," a concession that plaintiffs used to argue the platform was knowingly profiting from children it officially banned.¹⁴

The "18 Experts" and the Beauty Filter Debate

Perhaps the most visceral segment of the trial concerned the implementation of augmented reality "beauty filters"—tools that alter a user's face to look thinner, smoother, or more "perfect."

Internal emails revealed that 18 different experts—comprising both internal researchers and external academics—had explicitly warned Zuckerberg that plastic-surgery-mimicking filters were harmful to the mental health of teenage girls, fueling body dysmorphia and eating disorders.³⁶ A formal proposal was made to permanently ban these specific filters.

Zuckerberg personally intervened to reject this proposal. On the witness stand, he defended his decision as a protection of "free expression" and creativity. "It felt like it was going too far to not allow them," he testified. "I think that's quite a reasonable balance".³⁶ He claimed he weighed the experts' advice against "what the community was telling us."

The plaintiffs juxtaposed this "reasonable balance" with K.G.M.'s medical records, which detailed her struggle with body image and eating disorders allegedly exacerbated by the constant comparison to filtered perfection.³ The argument was clear: when given a choice between user safety (as advised by experts) and user engagement (facilitated by filters), the CEO chose engagement.

The "Pushers" Chat

In a moment that drew audible gasps in the courtroom, Lanier presented a chat log between Meta researchers. One employee, expressing frustration with the ethical implications of their work, wrote: "We're basically pushers... We are causing Reward Deficit Disorder bc people are binging on IG so much they can't feel reward anymore".³⁸

While the defense characterized this as "informal employee frustration" rather than company policy ³⁸, the terminology—"pushers," "binging," "Reward Deficit"—aligned perfectly with the plaintiff’s neuroscientific theory of addiction, suggesting that at the working level, Meta’s own scientists understood the product in the same terms as Dr. Lembke.

V. The Defense Strategy: Complexity, Causation, and Agency

Meta and Google mounted a vigorous defense, deploying a strategy that blended technical definitions, alternative causality, and principles of personal agency. Their defense relied on three primary pillars: the lack of medical consensus, the complexity of the plaintiff's life, and the existence of safety tools.

The "No Clinical Consensus" Defense

The cornerstone of the defense was the argument that "social media addiction" is not a recognized medical diagnosis. Defense attorneys pointed out that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR) does not currently list social media addiction as a disorder, unlike gambling disorder.⁴

Adam Mosseri, Head of Instagram, testified that he disagreed with the concept of clinical addiction to social media. He preferred the term "problematic use," which he described as "someone spending more time on Instagram than they feel good about".⁴⁰ This semantic distinction was crucial for the defense: if the condition doesn't medically exist, the product cannot be "defective" for causing it.

When confronted with a past podcast clip where he used the word "addiction," Mosseri claimed he had used the term "too casually" and was not speaking as a medical expert.⁴⁰ This pivotal moment highlighted the gap between colloquial understanding and legal/medical definitions, a gap the defense sought to exploit to dismantle the liability claim.

Alternative Causality: "The Blame Game"

The defense aggressively targeted the causal link between the apps and K.G.M.'s mental health. Meta’s attorney, Paul Schmidt, argued that Kaley’s depression and suicidal ideation were the result of a "turbulent home life" and "complex emotional issues" that predated her social media use.¹⁴

Schmidt noted that Kaley’s own therapists had never diagnosed her with social media addiction during her treatment. "They never diagnosed Kaley with social media addiction," Schmidt told the jury, implying the diagnosis was a lawyer-invented construct for the trial.⁴¹ The defense portrayed the apps as a "coping mechanism" or "escape" that Kaley turned to because she was depressed, rather than the cause of the depression.⁴² This "reverse causality" argument—that depressed teens use more social media, rather than social media causing depression—remains a hotly debated topic in academic psychology, and the defense leaned heavily on this ambiguity.

The Usage Argument: Quantifying the "Addiction"

Google’s defense for YouTube took a data-driven approach. Attorney Luis Li argued that K.G.M. was not "addicted" to YouTube because her usage data did not support it. He presented data claiming she averaged only 29 minutes a day on the platform, and only "1 minute and 14 seconds" on YouTube Shorts (the infinite-scroll feature).⁹

"It’s not social media addiction when it’s not social media and it’s not an addiction," Li argued, suggesting that calling a 29-minute daily habit an "addiction" trivialized real medical conditions.⁹ This argument sought to break the narrative of "constant, compulsive use" that the plaintiffs had constructed.

Well-Being Tools as a Shield

Meta also relied on its suite of "well-being tools" to demonstrate responsible corporate conduct. They highlighted features like:

• "Take a Break": Prompts users to pause after a certain time.

• "Quiet Mode": Mutes notifications at night.

• Parental Supervision: Allows parents to see who their teens follow and set time limits.³³

The defense argued that these tools provided users and parents with sufficient agency to manage their experience. They contended that a manufacturer who provides safety locks cannot be held liable if the user chooses not to use them. However, the plaintiff’s rebuttal using "Project Myst" (that these tools are known to be ineffective) aimed to neutralize this defense by characterizing the tools as performative compliance rather than functional safety measures.

VI. The Executive Testimony: Zuckerberg and Mosseri on the Stand

The climax of the trial was the testimony of the executives. This was not a Congressional hearing where politicians postured for soundbites; this was a cross-examination by skilled trial lawyers under the strict rules of evidence.

Mark Zuckerberg: The "Authenticity" Defense

Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony was characterized by a cool, technical detachment. When pressed by Mark Lanier on whether his platform "preyed upon" vulnerable people, Zuckerberg responded, "I think a reasonable company should try to help the people that use its services".⁴

A key moment of tension arose regarding "Time Spent" metrics. Lanier presented documents showing internal goals to increase the time users spent on the app (e.g., from 40 to 46 minutes per day).³⁶ Zuckerberg argued these were "proxies" for value, not goals in themselves. "If something is valuable and useful, people will naturally do it more," he testified, rejecting the idea that the company simply wanted to maximize scrolling for ad revenue.¹⁴

When asked if he believed social media caused mental health harms, Zuckerberg held the line: "The existing body of scientific work has not proven that social media causes mental health harms".⁴ This adherence to the "inconclusive science" defense echoed the strategies of industries past, placing the burden of absolute proof on the plaintiffs while the company continued its operations.

Adam Mosseri: The "Problematic Use" Pivot

Adam Mosseri’s testimony focused on the operational side of Instagram. He attempted to humanize the company’s decisions, stating it is "not good for the company, over the long run, to make decisions that profit for us but are poor for people's well-being".⁴⁰

However, his credibility was tested when Lanier played the "addiction" podcast clip. His retreat to the term "problematic use" appeared to many observers as a calculated legal pivot designed to avoid liability.⁴⁰ This semantic battle highlighted the tension between how these platforms are discussed in public culture (as addictive) and how they are defended in court (as merely engaging).

VII. Societal Impact and Future Outlook

Regardless of the jury's verdict in K.G.M. v. Meta et al., the trial has already irrevocably changed the landscape of the digital economy.

The Normalization of "Digital Product Liability"

This trial successfully moved the debate from "free speech" (Section 230) to "consumer safety" (Product Liability). By focusing on the architecture of the feed rather than the content of the posts, the plaintiffs have created a blueprint for future regulation. If a court finds that "infinite scroll" is a design defect analogous to a gas tank that explodes on impact, it mandates a fundamental redesign of the user interface of the internet. This could lead to a future where "friction" is legally required in digital design—mandatory stopping cues, default-off auto-play, and strict bans on variable ratio reward schedules for minors.

The "Duty of Care"

The proceedings have bolstered the legislative push for a "Duty of Care"—a legal obligation for platforms to prevent foreseeable harm to minors. This concept, central to the UK's Online Safety Act and the proposed US Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), is now being litigated in real-time.⁴⁴ The "Project Myst" documents, showing that Meta knew of the harms and the inefficacy of their tools, provide the "foreseeability" evidence required to establish negligence in future legislative/legal frameworks.

The "Tobacco" Parallel and the Future of Tech

The comparison to Big Tobacco is no longer just rhetorical; it is structural. The "18 experts" email ³⁶ is the digital equivalent of the tobacco industry’s internal memos acknowledging the addictiveness of nicotine while publicly denying it. This trial marks the moment where the "Attention Economy" is formally accused of externalizing its costs—mental health, lost productivity, and developmental delays—onto the public sector.

As the jury deliberates, the tech industry faces a reckoning. The era of "move fast and break things" relied on the assumption that the things being broken were abstract concepts like "privacy" or "norms." The Zuckerberg Trial asserts that what was broken was the biological capability of a generation to regulate its own attention. Whether via a jury verdict or preemptive settlement, the architecture of the internet is poised for a forced renovation, one that prioritizes the cognitive liberty of the user over the engagement metrics of the platform.

Table 2: Key Internal Documents Revealed in Trial

Document Name	Context	Key Finding/Quote	Defense Response
"Project Myst"	Joint study with Univ. of Chicago	Parental controls have "little impact"; adverse life events increase addiction risk.9	Study focused on "excessive use," not clinical addiction; findings were for internal improvement.29
"Tweens" Presentation	2018 Instagram Strategy	"If we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens".10	Document "mischaracterized"; meant to discuss safe versions for younger users.10
The "18 Experts" Email	Memo to Zuckerberg re: Filters	Recommended banning plastic surgery filters due to body dysmorphia risks.36	Zuckerberg decided banning them infringed on "free expression" and creativity.36
"Pushers" Email	Internal Researcher Chat	"We're basically pushers... causing Reward Deficit Disorder".38	Chat represents informal employee frustration, not company policy.38

Works cited

1. Zuckerberg grilled about Meta's strategy to target 'teens' and 'tweens' | WYPR, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.wypr.org/2026-02-18/zuckerberg-grilled-about-metas-strategy-to-target-teens-and-tweens

2. Mark Zuckerberg set to testify in watershed trial testing social media addiction claims, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/mark-zuckerberg-set-to-testify-in-watershed-trial-testing-social-media-addiction-claims

3. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to face jury in landmark social media ..., accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.wunc.org/2026-02-18/meta-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-to-face-jury-in-landmark-social-media-addiction-trial

4. Mark Zuckerberg quizzed on kids' Instagram use in social media trial, accessed February 18, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/mark-zuckerberg-trial-testimony-instagram-c8cbaa32ccbf4933ec3a7beebd6cf34b

5. What legal experts say about a major 'bellwether trial' over child social media addiction, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-to-know-about-a-trial-that-will-test-tech-giants-liability-for-child-social-media-addiction

6. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to face jury in landmark social media addiction trial, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.opb.org/article/2026/02/18/mark-zuckerberg-to-testify-at-landmark-social-media-trial/

7. Navigating the digital dilemma: Court addresses social media liability in adolescent addiction litigation | DLA Piper, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.dlapiper.com/insights/publications/2024/01/navigating-the-digital-dilemma-court-addresses-social-media-liability-in-adolescent-addiction

8. Addicted by Design: Reassessing Section 230 in the New Era of ..., accessed February 18, 2026, https://uclawreview.org/2025/12/04/addicted-by-design-reassessing-section-230-in-the-new-era-of-social-media-addiction-litigation/

9. Legal News > Your source for information behind the law, accessed February 18, 2026, https://legalnews.com/Home/Articles?DataId=1593638

10. Zuckerberg grilled on Meta’s targeting of teenagers in social media addiction trial, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/4461445/mark-zuckerberg-grilled-meta-targeting-teenagers-social-media-addiction-trial/

11. Lawsuits Test New Legal Theories About What Causes Social Media Addiction, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.edsurge.com/news/2026-02-17-lawsuits-test-new-legal-theories-about-what-causes-social-media-addiction

12. Plaintiffs Prevail in Key Expert Testimony Rulings in Social Media Addiction Litigation - Panish | Shea, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.panish.law/2025/09/plaintiffs-prevail-in-key-expert-testimony-rulings-in-social-media-addiction-litigation/

13. Scroll Control: Breaking Up With Your Phone (Without Ghosting the Digital World), accessed February 18, 2026, https://ciracenter.org/blog/scroll-control-breaking-up-with-your-phone-without-ghosting-the-digital-world/

14. Zuckerberg defends Instagram policies in first bellwether social media addiction trial, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/389796-zuckerberg-defends-instagram-policies-in-first-bellwether-social-media-addiction-trial

15. What Does the First US Social Media Addiction Trial Mean for the Tech Industry?, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.techpolicy.press/what-does-the-first-us-social-media-addiction-trial-mean-for-the-tech-industry/

16. Pivotal Social Media Addiction Trial Opens in California as Nationwide Litigation Against Tech Giants Intensifies - Levin Papantonio, accessed February 18, 2026, https://levinlaw.com/newsroom/social-media-addiction-ca-trial/

17. Social Media Addiction Lawsuit - February 2026 Update - Robert King Law Firm, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.robertkinglawfirm.com/personal-injury/social-media-addiction-lawsuit/

18. Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins

19. Youth Social Media Addiction Lawsuits: 2026 Outlook - LitPRO, accessed February 18, 2026, https://litpro.com/youth-social-media-addiction-lawsuits-2026-outlook/

20. 'It's not an addiction': YouTube pushes back in landmark social ..., accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.courthousenews.com/its-not-an-addiction-youtube-pushes-back-in-landmark-social-media-trial/

21. Understanding the Brain's Response to Social Media: A Closer Look at Dopaminergic Mechanisms - Be part of the knowledge - ReachMD, accessed February 18, 2026, https://reachmd.com/news/understanding-the-brains-response-to-social-media-a-closer-look-at-dopaminergic-mechanisms/2470999/

22. The Emotional Reinforcement Mechanism of and Phased ..., accessed February 18, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12108933/

23. The Application of Skinner's Theories in Modern Education - Structural Learning, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.structural-learning.com/post/skinners-theories

24. Psychology of Screen Addiction: Why We Can't Stop Scrolling - Thera Wellness, accessed February 18, 2026, https://therawellness.us/psychology-of-screen-addiction/

25. Understanding dopamine and reinforcement learning: The dopamine reward prediction error hypothesis | PNAS, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1014269108

26. The Neuroscience of Social Media: How Algorithms Hijack Your Brain | Dr. Aaron Hartman, accessed February 18, 2026, https://richmondfunctionalmedicine.com/neuroscience-of-social-media/

27. Prefrontal Control and Internet Addiction: A Theoretical Model and Review of Neuropsychological and Neuroimaging Findings - PMC, accessed February 18, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4034340/

28. Neurobiological and behavioral correlates of excessive social media use in adolescents - Journal of Surgery and Medicine, accessed February 18, 2026, https://jsurgmed.com/article/view/8211/6546

29. Meta Study Shows Parental Controls Fail To Curb Teen Overuse - FindArticles, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.findarticles.com/meta-study-shows-parental-controls-fail-to-curb-teen-overuse/

30. Meta research finds parental supervision ineffective at reducing teen compulsive social media use, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.livemedianews.gr/tech/4684/meta-research-finds-parental-supervision-ineffective-at-reducing-teen-compulsive-social-media-use/

31. Arguments to begin in landmark social media addiction trial set in Los Angeles | kare11.com, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.kare11.com/article/syndication/associatedpress/arguments-to-begin-in-landmark-social-media-addiction-trial-set-in-los-angeles/616-cd6c1e14-01cb-4169-96ca-035c552c8a96

32. Meta launches new parental supervision tools for Instagram | PBS News, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/meta-launches-new-parental-supervision-tools-for-instagram

33. Our Work to Help Provide Young People with Safe, Positive Experiences - Meta, accessed February 18, 2026, https://about.fb.com/news/2024/01/our-work-to-help-provide-young-people-with-safe-positive-experiences/

34. Landmark Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Moves to Trial - Legal Reader, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.legalreader.com/landmark-social-media-addiction-lawsuit-moves-to-trial/

35. Zuckerberg grilled about Meta’s strategy to target ‘teens’ and ‘tweens’, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.opb.org/article/2026/02/18/zuckerberg-asked-about-meta-s-targeting-of-teens-and-tweens/

36. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg grilled during landmark social media addiction trial, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.courthousenews.com/meta-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-grilled-during-landmark-social-media-addiction-trial/

37. Case 4:23-cv-05448-YGR Document 73-2 Filed 11/22/23 Page 1 of 233 - California Department of Justice - CA.gov, accessed February 18, 2026, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Less-redacted%20complaint%20-%20released.pdf

38. Social media addiction was knowingly inflicted on kids, lawsuits say - CalMatters, accessed February 18, 2026, https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2026/01/social-media-addiction-suits-in-california/

39. Trials Target Tech Giants Over Youth Social Media Addiction, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.addictioncenter.com/news/2026/02/social-media-addiction-trial/

40. Instagram chief says he does not believe people can get clinically addicted to social media, accessed February 18, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/instagram-social-media-addiction-trial-mosseri-los-angeles-a49f64e21682e8bc1b98fbdf3d061579

41. 'Engineered addiction': Landmark trial over social media's effect on kids boots up in downtown LA | Courthouse News Service, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.courthousenews.com/engineered-addiction-landmark-trial-over-social-medias-effect-on-kids-boots-up-in-downtown-la/

42. Mark Zuckerberg to testify in trial that could shape the future of social media - WFAA, accessed February 18, 2026, https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/nation-world/mark-zuckerberg-testimony-trial-social-media-impacts-children-mental-health-meta-facebook-instagram-addiction/507-0c671cd1-fe20-473f-897f-8ca1e977c6ea

43. Protecting teens from the negative effects of social media - VantagePoint Magazine, accessed February 18, 2026, https://vantagepointmag.co.uk/blog/protecting-teens-from-the-negative-effects-of-social-media/?print=print

44. Experts discuss ramifications of court cases addressing social media addiction in children, accessed February 18, 2026, https://news.vt.edu/articles/2026/02/Meta-YouTube-youth-children-social-media-addiction-trial-case-experts.html