YouTube has rejected claims that it is deliberately addictive or even qualifies as a social media platform, as a high-stakes US trial against major technology firms entered its second day.
The video-sharing giant, alongside Meta, is defending itself in a closely watched civil case in Los Angeles that could shape the future of litigation against tech companies. The proceedings are expected to influence how courts interpret allegations that digital platforms are intentionally designed to hook young users.
Representing YouTube, lawyer Luis Li told a 12-member jury that the premise of the lawsuit is fundamentally flawed. “It’s not social media addiction when it’s not social media and it’s not addiction,” he argued, distancing the platform from the claims brought by the plaintiff. His remarks followed opening statements earlier this week from lawyers representing the claimant and co-defendant Meta.
The lawsuit revolves around a 20-year-old woman, identified in court as Kaley G.M., who alleges she suffered severe psychological harm after becoming dependent on social media from a young age. According to court filings, she began using YouTube at six, signed up for Instagram at 11, and later joined Snapchat and TikTok during her early teens.
Li maintained that evidence would show Kaley was not addicted to YouTube. He told jurors that both the plaintiff and her family, as well as her doctor, had acknowledged this. The defence sought to distinguish YouTube’s model from platforms such as Instagram, arguing that it functions more like a video-streaming service than a traditional social networking site.
Describing YouTube as a service that allows users to watch content “essentially for free” across devices, Li likened it to Netflix or conventional television. He added that more viewers now access YouTube through television screens than mobile devices, and claimed its viewership surpasses that of cable TV.
The defence further contended that users return to the platform because of the content itself — whether to learn new skills or gain recognition — rather than because of features such as endless scrolling. Li pointed to internal emails which, he said, demonstrated company leaders had resisted strategies aimed purely at driving online virality, instead prioritising educational and socially beneficial material.
In contrast, the plaintiffs’ first witness, Stanford University professor Dr Anna Lembke, offered a starkly different perspective. The author of Dopamine Nation testified that she considers social media, broadly defined, to function similarly to a drug. She explained that the part of the brain responsible for impulse control is not fully developed until around the age of 25, making teenagers more vulnerable to risk-taking behaviours.
Dr Lembke described early exposure as particularly significant, calling the most accessible platform a potential “gateway drug”. She referenced Kaley’s initial use of YouTube at the age of six as part of that pattern.
The case is being viewed as a bellwether trial, with its outcome likely to influence hundreds of similar lawsuits across the United States. Social media companies are currently facing mounting legal challenges accusing them of contributing to depression, eating disorders and, in extreme cases, suicide among young users.
Legal observers note that the plaintiffs’ strategy mirrors the approach once taken against tobacco firms in the 1990s and early 2000s, signalling what could become a defining legal battle for the technology industry.
