There are a number of lawsuits and hearings against social media platforms in various countries, often demanding transparency on issues such as privacy violations, hate speech, or anti-competitive practices.

This time, the County Superior Court in Los Angeles, USA, is going to hear an in-depth hearing on a slightly different nature of the case. In this, there will be a 6 to 8 week-long ‘jury trial’ on what apps like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat are doing, not on what they are doing, but on how these apps are designed, whether they have technology that keeps users stuck on the screen, and whether these apps are responsible for mental health problems.

During this hearing, the heads of Facebook and YouTube will have to give statements to the judge and jury (a group of ordinary citizens). After a 19-year-old girl from California, named ‘KGM’, filed a lawsuit claiming that she was seriously mentally ill due to the social media platform, the court has decided to proceed with the hearing process in a way that goes deeper into it.

This is the first time that such a detailed debate is taking place on the ‘design architecture’ of a social media platform. The jury selection process began on Tuesday and the case, if resolved, will set a precedent for more than 2,600 similar cases, wrote journalist Sonja Sharp in the Los Angeles Times.

In the lawsuit filed in 2023, victim KGM stated that she had been watching YouTube since the age of 6, and started enjoying Instagram when she was 9, but that enjoyment gradually turned into an addiction. She then told the court in a statement during the preliminary hearing that she had to go through depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts.

She has been saying that social media platforms have developed algorithms, AI, and recommendation technology to keep users glued to the screen by continuously showing one video after another, making them curious and creating a feeling that they have missed something. She argues that she fell into the trap of the same because the design of the apps is designed to attract the user's attention.

‘When I was in secondary school, I was not allowed to use my phone in the classroom or other places, so I would secretly go to the counselor’s office and use my phone for a while,’ KGM said in a statement. ‘I regret using the social media app like that now.’

The documents submitted by the teenager’s mother to the court also state that ‘when the phone was snatched from her daughter’s hand, she would cry and scream as if someone had died,’ according to international media reports. Like Ammal, KGM has experienced social media users opening the app incessantly. She has blamed social media apps for causing her to suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts.

Just before the hearing of this case began, TikTok had secretly reached a settlement with her, according to Reuters. Earlier, Snapchat's parent company Snap also decided to withdraw from the trial by settling with the victim teenager. Details of the settlement have not been made public. 

Facebook's parent company Meta and Google's YouTube are now expected to appear as defendants in this legal battle. According to the BBC's US-based technology correspondent Lily Jamali, this is the first special hearing in history where a jury will determine the liability of technology companies. "Many internal documents that these companies tried to hide will now be made public in court, which is significant in itself," Mary Gra Leary, a professor at Catholic University, told the BBC.

The case accuses tech giants of deliberately creating apps that make children and teenagers addicted to screens, and the app's algorithms and design are targeted, which is an interesting topic, said The Guardian's journalist Dara Kerr. 

According to him, the case is being seen as an attempt to repeal or amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which regulates internet technology. The section has been criticized for providing broad legal protection to online platforms in the US. 

It states that platforms should not be held accountable for the content posted by social media users, and that platforms should be seen as neutral intermediaries, not like traditional media publishers.

In the context of KGM's case, the plaintiff's argument is that platforms like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap have deliberately designed addictive algorithms and features, so they do not have the legal protection of Section 230. KGM claims that these platforms have become not only providers of harmful content, but also 'co-creators' or 'information providers'. In this, 'addictive algorithms or technologies' are defined as psychological addictions (behavioral addictions) rather than addictions to any object or substance. These include behaviors such as frequently checking your phone, feeling happy when you get a lot of likes/loves but worried when you get less, and spending hours on your phone.

According to Al Jazeera, this fight has been compared to the legal campaign against the tobacco industry (Big Tobacco) in the 1990s. At that time, it has been claimed that social media companies are now deliberately luring children into addiction, just as tobacco companies knew about cigarette addiction and hid it.

The style used by technology companies to confuse users has been compared to the 'slot machines' of casinos and the technology of the tobacco industry. Some argue that the 'pull to refresh' feature of social media works like slot machines in gambling houses.

‘Just as when you pull the lever on a gambling machine, you hope to win this time,’ when you ‘pull-to-refresh’ on Instagram or TikTok, you hope to ‘see if some new or interesting content comes next.’ The KGM side claims that social media companies have deliberately created such ‘addictive’ designs to make money from advertising.

If the teenager wins this case, the companies will have to pay billions of dollars in compensation. Experts have pointed out that there is a possibility of widespread changes in the design of social media platforms. There is also talk of holding platforms responsible as product designers and implementing stronger rules for teenagers.

YouTube spokesperson Josh Castaneda has responded that the allegations against the platform are untrue and unsubstantiated. He claims that social media companies have introduced enough new features to protect children. Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, told the BBC that while he is a fan of social media platforms, they are not free and can be harmful.

In recent years, there has been a global debate about the presence of children and teenagers on social media and the impact it has. Some countries have begun to impose age limits on such apps. Australia was the first to implement such an age limit last December, imposing a fine of up to $31 million on platform operators who allow access to children under the age of 16.

Since then, countries such as France, Egypt, Malaysia, Denmark and others have implemented similar restrictions. Egypt's parliament is preparing to pass legislation this week to protect teenagers from the dangers of social media.

Lawmakers have said they will look for ways to control children's use of social media against "digital chaos", taking into account the steps being taken by Western countries.

A recent study by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and Oregon Health and Science University in the US showed that the increased use of social media in children is damaging their concentration levels. 

Researchers claim that the incidence of ‘Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder’ (ADHD) in children is increasing due to social media. ADHD is a common brain disorder in children that causes problems with concentration.