Social Media Trial: Woman Says Addiction Began at Six

Published: 27 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A groundbreaking social media trial in the United States has captured global attention this week. At its centre stands a 20-year-old woman who says her addiction began at just six years old. The young claimant, identified in court as KGM, told jurors she became hooked on online platforms during early childhood. Her testimony marks a pivotal moment in a legal battle that could reshape how technology companies operate worldwide.

The social media trial, unfolding in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is the first of its kind to reach a jury. It forms part of a sweeping legal action brought by more than 1,600 plaintiffs. Families and school districts across America allege that major platforms knowingly designed products to be addictive. The case draws comparisons to historic litigation against tobacco companies in the 1990s.

KGM told the court she started watching videos on YouTube at the age of six. By nine, she was using Instagram daily. She said her emotional wellbeing began deteriorating before she turned ten. Depression followed, alongside episodes of self-harm that she described as attempts to cope.

Her voice reportedly faltered as she described feeling anxious and insecure. She explained how beauty filters distorted her self-image and magnified insecurities. When her mother removed her phone, she felt overwhelming panic. She feared missing out on conversations and trends shaping her peer group.

“I can’t, it’s too hard to be without it,” she said during questioning. Those words echoed around the courtroom, underscoring the emotional gravity of the social media trial. Although she now recognises the harm, she admitted she still uses social platforms today.

The lawsuit targets Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, alongside YouTube’s parent company. Other companies were initially included but later settled privately. TikTok and Snap reached agreements before proceedings advanced to jury arguments. The terms of those settlements remain undisclosed.

Lawyers representing KGM argue that specific product features were deliberately engineered to maximise engagement. They point to infinite scroll functions and automatic video playback. According to the plaintiffs, such tools encourage prolonged use without natural stopping points. The familiar “like” button, they argue, taps into teenagers’ desire for social validation.

Defence lawyers strongly reject those allegations. Representatives for Meta insist the platforms prioritise safety and wellbeing. A spokesperson for YouTube described the claims as unfounded. Both companies argue that many factors influence adolescent mental health.

In court filings, Meta’s legal team suggested KGM faced significant personal challenges before using social media. They argued her difficult home environment contributed to her distress. During testimony, KGM acknowledged her mother sometimes behaved abusively. However, she also described her as loving and hardworking, raising three children under strain.

The complexity of her family life adds nuance to the social media trial. Jurors must weigh personal circumstances against corporate responsibility. Legal experts say such cases hinge on whether platforms knowingly exploited psychological vulnerabilities.

KGM said her online habits strained relationships at home and school. She described isolating herself in her bedroom for hours. She experienced suicidal thoughts and began cutting herself at ten years old. She told the court it became a “coping mechanism” for overwhelming sadness.

Her former therapist, Victoria Burke, provided supporting testimony earlier this week. She said she treated KGM at ages thirteen and fourteen. Burke diagnosed her with body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia. According to her testimony, social media played a contributing role.

Burke explained that KGM often used her phone to avoid appearing alone. The device became a shield against perceived judgement from peers. That behaviour, she suggested, reflected a deeper fear of exclusion. It is a dynamic many parents and educators recognise in today’s classrooms.

Over recent weeks, senior executives have also taken the stand. Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Meta, answered questions about internal research and safety tools. Adam Mosseri, who leads Instagram, faced scrutiny over teen-focused features. Cristos Goodrow, a senior engineering executive at YouTube, discussed design decisions.

Their testimony has highlighted the tension between innovation and accountability. Executives maintain their platforms provide connection, creativity, and educational opportunities. They argue billions of users benefit from positive online experiences daily.

Yet critics contend that internal documents reveal awareness of potential harms. Campaigners argue companies failed to act swiftly enough to protect younger users. The social media trial could determine whether courts accept that argument.

Legal analysts note the significance of this being a “bellwether” case. Such trials test evidence and legal strategies before larger groups proceed. A verdict favouring plaintiffs could influence settlements in related lawsuits. It might also encourage regulatory reforms beyond the United States.

In the United Kingdom, policymakers have closely followed developments. The Online Safety Act already places duties on technology companies to protect children. Observers say outcomes in America may strengthen calls for stricter enforcement. British parents are increasingly concerned about screen time and mental health.

Medical professionals emphasise that adolescent wellbeing is shaped by multiple influences. Social media can amplify existing vulnerabilities rather than create them outright. However, design features may intensify compulsive patterns of use. Researchers continue examining links between heavy usage and anxiety disorders.

KGM’s account resonated widely across social networks after court coverage spread. Many young adults shared similar experiences of early exposure. Others defended platforms, citing creative opportunities and community support. The debate illustrates how deeply embedded these services are in modern life.

Despite the painful memories revisited in court, KGM remains measured in tone. She told jurors she hopes companies will introduce safer design practices. She does not seek to eliminate social media entirely. Instead, she wants greater transparency and meaningful safeguards for children.

The coming weeks will see testimony from her mother and a child psychiatrist. Expert witnesses are expected to debate causation and responsibility. Jurors must assess complex psychological and technological evidence. Their decision could set a powerful precedent.

For now, the social media trial stands as a defining legal confrontation of the digital age. It asks whether platforms that connect billions can also be held liable for harm. It challenges companies to reconcile profit-driven models with ethical obligations.

Whatever the verdict, the case has already intensified global scrutiny. Parents, educators, and lawmakers are watching carefully. The experiences shared in court reflect anxieties felt across many households. As technology evolves, societies must consider how to balance innovation with protection.

The courtroom exchanges have remained calm yet emotionally charged. KGM’s testimony provided a human face to abstract arguments. Her story reminds observers that behind every data point lies a young life. The social media trial may ultimately redefine how childhood unfolds online.

Check our latest news