In a Los Angeles courtroom, the emotional distance between personal tragedy and corporate power narrowed to a few feet as Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, took the witness stand. Facing him in the public gallery was Lori Schott, who believes her daughter Annalee might still be alive had she not fallen into what the family describes as a destructive spiral fueled by social media.
The civil trial unfolding in Los Angeles is being closely watched by regulators, lawmakers, and parents across the world. Legal experts say the case could become a defining moment in determining whether technology companies can be held responsible for the psychological effects of platforms designed to command attention and encourage prolonged use.
Schott’s daughter, an 18-year-old from eastern Colorado, died by suicide in November 2020 after years of struggling with self-image and online comparison. Her mother recalls a teenager who loved animals and once dreamed of a future filled with horses and open plains, but who gradually came to believe she was “ugly and worthless” after immersing herself in the metrics-driven culture of likes, filters, and algorithmic feeds.
The proceedings are supported by Prince Harry, who has met privately with several of the families attending the trial. Through the Archewell Foundation, he and his wife have made digital safety a central issue, framing the debate as a public health challenge rather than a question of personal responsibility.
Next week, the spotlight will shift further toward Silicon Valley when Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Meta Platforms, is scheduled to testify. It is believed to be the first time the billionaire has been ordered to give evidence in a trial focused specifically on the alleged harms of social media design.
At the heart of the case is a young Californian woman, identified only as KGM, who argues that she became addicted to social media while still a child. Her legal team contends that platform features such as infinite scrolling and instant feedback loops were intentionally engineered to maximize engagement, keeping her online for hours each day and contributing to anxiety, depression, and severe body-image issues.
Lawyers for the plaintiff likened these mechanisms to addictive substances, arguing in court that the platforms were not merely tools but environments designed to capture and hold attention. Attorneys for the defense countered that the woman’s struggles stemmed primarily from difficulties in her personal life and warned against attributing complex mental health conditions to technology alone.
Mosseri rejected the assertion that social media can create clinical addiction, drawing a distinction between dependency and what he described as “problematic use.” He told the court that the company strives to balance user safety with freedom of expression, arguing that overregulation could lead to censorship and unintended consequences.
The debate echoes earlier cases that have already shaken public confidence in the safety of digital environments. In Britain, the death of Molly Russell, a 14-year-old who viewed large amounts of self-harm content online before taking her own life in 2017, led to a landmark inquest finding that social media had contributed to her death. That conclusion intensified calls in the United Kingdom for stricter online safety laws, a debate covered extensively by The Times and other international media.
If the California jury rules in favor of the plaintiff, the consequences could extend far beyond a single case. Thousands of similar lawsuits are already being prepared, and a verdict against the companies could open the door to sweeping financial penalties and mandated design changes across the industry.
Some companies have already sought to limit their exposure. TikTok and Snapchat reached settlements before the trial began, leaving Meta and YouTube among the primary defendants still contesting the claims in court.
For the families attending each day’s proceedings, however, the legal arguments are inseparable from personal loss. Schott described how her daughter obsessively tracked the number of likes on her posts, interpreting small fluctuations as judgments about her worth. In journals later found by her family, the teenager questioned whether anyone could ever love her.
Another parent in the courtroom, John DeMay, has become an outspoken campaigner after his son Jordan died in 2022 following an online sextortion scheme. The teenager believed he was communicating with a girl he met on social media, only to be blackmailed by criminals operating overseas. DeMay argues that platforms must do far more to detect and prevent such exploitation.
“These companies would never accept a comparable risk in the physical world,” he has said outside court, comparing social media to an automobile with known safety defects. “If a seatbelt failed this often, regulators would intervene immediately.”
The legal framework governing online platforms in the United States has remained largely unchanged since the 1990s, when lawmakers sought to nurture the early internet by shielding companies from liability for user-generated content. Critics say that protection, once seen as essential to innovation, now leaves modern platforms operating in a regulatory landscape that has failed to keep pace with their global reach and influence.
Supporters of reform believe the current trial may finally test those protections in a meaningful way. By focusing on product design rather than individual posts, the plaintiffs aim to argue that harm can arise not just from what appears online, but from how platforms are structured to reward engagement above all else.
Outside the courthouse, parents have gathered holding photographs of children they say were lost to online harms, transforming the case into a broader movement seeking accountability from the technology sector. Many describe the lawsuit as a “David and Goliath” struggle against corporations whose products shape the daily lives of billions.
For Schott, the outcome will not change her own loss, but she hopes it may prevent others. She says her goal is not to destroy social media but to force it to evolve into an environment where young users can exist without being consumed by it.
Whether the jury ultimately agrees may determine not only the future of this case, but also how societies around the world redefine the balance between innovation, profit, and the safety of the next generation.
