“An Empty Vessel” in a Polarized Case
During voir dire, many prospective jurors voiced strong opinions about the tech giants and Zuckerberg himself. The hospitalized juror — a retired film industry camera operator — stood apart.
“I’m an empty vessel,” he said at the time, drawing laughter in a courtroom otherwise heavy with tension.
Claims of Addictive Design
The bellwether trial centers on allegations that social media platforms deliberately engineered features to foster compulsive use among young people. Companies behind TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube and Instagram are accused of deploying mechanisms such as infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications and digital reward systems to hook users.
Pretrial rulings from Judge Kuhl narrowed the scope of the litigation. The focus now rests on whether platform design features are inherently addictive — not on the third-party content posted by users. The companies face failure-to-warn claims along with negligence and concealment allegations.
The plaintiff, identified in court as Kaley G.M., is now 20 but alleges that social media addiction during her youth triggered serious mental health issues. Though TikTok and Snap were initially defendants in her case, she has reached settlements with them. Those agreements do not resolve the broader coordinated proceedings still pending before Judge Kuhl.
Opening statements began Feb. 9. Jurors have heard testimony from Anna Lembke, a professor of psychiatry and addiction medicine at Stanford University’s Addiction Medicine Dual Diagnosis Clinic, as well as Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri.
The plaintiff’s legal team includes attorneys from Kiesel Law LLP, The Lanier Law Firm, Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP and Beasley Allen Law Firm. Meta is represented by attorneys from Covington & Burling LLP, while YouTube’s defense is led by counsel from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC.
As the courtroom waits for Wednesday — and for Zuckerberg’s testimony — the trial hangs in a fragile balance. One juror’s illness has slowed the machinery of justice, but the broader questions remain: When design meets dopamine, who bears responsibility?
