The era of unchecked social media algorithm design is facing its day in court. This week in California, a landmark trial began that could redefine the liability social media companies face for the psychological impact of their engagement mechanics.
Plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier opened with a blunt claim: “These companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children, and they did it on purpose.”
The case centres on a plaintiff referred to as K.G.M., who alleges her mental health deteriorated as a direct result of social media addiction during her teenage years.
The Evidence Against Manipulative Social Media Algorithm Design
Plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier presented internal emails to show how social media algorithm design was prioritized over user well-being. Documents revealed a push for a 12% increase in time spent on Meta’s platforms, suggesting that engagement mechanics were intentionally tuned to maximize ‘dwell time’ at any cost.
Meta’s legal team took a different approach. Attorney Paul Schmidt argued K.G.M.’s mental health struggles stemmed from a difficult home life, including domestic violence and verbal abuse, pointing to therapy records dating back to when she was three years old.
As reported by the Associated Press in their coverage of the landmark social media trial, plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier presented jurors with internal documents suggesting that ‘addiction by design’ was a corporate priority. The case highlights how specific features like the ‘like’ button and infinite scrolling were engineered to cater to a minor’s craving for social validation.
The trial is expected to run for six weeks. Witnesses will include Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri, YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, and former Meta employees turned whistleblowers.
This case matters beyond the courtroom. The outcome will likely set a benchmark for monetary damages across thousands of similar lawsuits brought by families, state prosecutors, and school districts across the US.
Snap and TikTok were originally named as defendants but settled with K.G.M. last month.
Around one hundred observers filled the gallery on day one, including parents who believe their children died because of how these platforms were designed.
The bigger picture for all platforms
If this trial establishes that algorithm design and engagement mechanics cause measurable psychological harm. The legal precedent won’t stop at Instagram and YouTube.
LinkedIn uses the same playbook. Algorithmic feeds designed to maximise time on platform. Notification systems engineered to pull you back in. Metrics like impressions and follower counts that trigger the same dopamine loops. The platform even introduced short-form video and “creator mode” to drive more engagement. Borrowing directly from the platforms now sitting in a courtroom.
The outcome of this trial will directly influence the LinkedIn algorithm trends we see over the next few years. As regulators close in on addictive mechanics, platforms will be forced to shift toward value-based metrics rather than pure ‘time on platform’.
The difference is audience, not mechanism. LinkedIn targets professionals instead of teenagers. But the addictive design patterns are identical. Endless scrolling. Variable reward notifications. Content ranked by engagement, not value.
The Future of Regulation in Social Media Algorithm Design
If the courts rule that these choices create liability, social media algorithm design may face the same regulatory path as the tobacco industry. We could see a future defined by health warnings, mandatory disclosures, and strict restrictions on algorithmic amplification.
We could see a future where social media companies face the same regulatory path as tobacco. Health warnings on sign-up screens. Mandatory disclosures about addictive design features. Restrictions on algorithmic amplification. Class action lawsuits from adults claiming professional social media damaged their mental health, productivity, or personal relationships.
For those of us who use LinkedIn as a business tool, this is worth watching closely. The platforms we rely on for client acquisition are built on the same engagement architecture now being challenged in court.
The smartest move is to treat LinkedIn as a tool you control, not a feed that controls you. Build a system. Set time limits. Focus on outcomes, not vanity metrics. Because if this trial goes the way the plaintiffs hope, the way we all use social media is about to change.