Snap slips as teen addiction trial begins

Snap shares declined after the opening of a Los Angeles trial testing claims that social media platforms, including Snapchat, contributed to youth addiction and mental health issues. The proceedings involve two teenage plaintiffs who allege that design features of services operated by Meta (META) Platforms and Snap drove compulsive use and harmed their well-being. The case is being heard in Los Angeles Superior Court and is expected to run for several weeks, beginning with jury selection.

The trial is viewed as a significant legal test because it sits against the backdrop of thousands of similar lawsuits targeting large social media companies over alleged impacts on young users. The outcome could influence investor perceptions of potential legal and financial exposure for platforms that rely heavily on youth engagement.

The plaintiffs, identified in court papers as S.J., a 16-year-old girl from Illinois, and K.D.B., an 18-year-old woman from Mississippi, say they began using YouTube as early as age 3 or 4 and other social media platforms around age 9. They allege that features such as autoplay, infinite scroll, endless feeds and streaks promoted compulsive use of social media. As a result, they claim to have developed depression, anxiety and eating disorders.

The lawsuits assert that Meta (META) and Snap deliberately emphasized these design elements to increase engagement, framing them as central to an addictive user experience. The case is only the second to reach trial involving individual plaintiffs making such addiction-focused allegations, following an earlier trial in which social media companies were ordered to pay $6 million in damages.

Meta and Snap reject the contention that their platforms were designed to addict young people and say they have built protections and safeguards for younger users over many years. Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, maintains that a young person’s mental health is shaped by many factors and highlights that one plaintiff used TikTok far more than its own services, while also citing her personal circumstances as important contributors to her struggles.

Snap argues that Snapchat differs from traditional social media because it does not open to a feed or a ranking of others’ posts and says it has put its community first in how the platform is designed. Both companies have also invoked legal defenses, including arguments related to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields online platforms from liability over user-generated content, though courts have allowed certain design-based claims to proceed.

The Los Angeles case unfolds within a wider wave of litigation over youth mental health and social media. More than 3,800 lawsuits by states, school districts and individuals asserting similar claims are pending in federal court in California. Earlier in the year, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in a separate case brought by a young woman identified as Kaley G.M., resulting in a damages award that Meta is now appealing.

In August, Meta reached settlements worth up to $18 billion with nearly every U.S. state and territory over the impact of its platforms on teen mental health and agreed to change how teens can access Instagram and Facebook. While that agreement addressed state claims, company representatives have characterized individual and school district cases as requiring more direct proof linking specific harms to platform use. The current trial against Meta and Snap will add a new reference point for how courts and juries assess these allegations.