By Linet Amuli - Reporter
United States, 27 January 2026 - For too long, social media companies have dismissed concerns about the mental health of young users.
Today, that stance is being tested in a U.S. courtroom, as a California teen, known as KGM, and her mother, Karen Glenn, take Meta, TikTok, and YouTube to task for allegedly designing platforms that deliberately hook and harm children. Snap, facing similar allegations, quietly settled last week, but the spotlight now falls squarely on the remaining giants.
This case isn’t just about one teenager. It’s about a generation of young people whose development, self-image, and mental health are being shaped by endless feeds, addictive notifications, and algorithms engineered to maximize engagement. Internal research and whistleblower reports have suggested that executives at these companies were aware of the risks yet continued prioritizing growth, clicks, and profits.
Parents and advocacy groups have warned about this for years. Children have reported sleepless nights, bullying, sextortion, and anxiety fueled by social media. Yet tech leaders have leaned on legal shields and vague promises of “safety features,” while claiming their platforms are benign or even beneficial. For millions of teens, the evidence of harm is already painfully clear.
The KGM trial represents more than a legal battle; it’s a moral reckoning. It challenges the notion that engagement at any cost is acceptable. It forces tech executives to explain why they designed features that exploit psychological vulnerabilities rather than protect young users. And it may finally give families a voice after years of frustration and helplessness.
Related articles
Regulators have tried to intervene, with proposals ranging from parental control tools to warning labels akin to those on tobacco products. But voluntary measures, after years of industry denial, have proven insufficient. Courtrooms may be the first venue where real accountability is possible.
The outcome of this trial could reshape social media’s relationship with young people. Platforms might be forced to rethink their design choices, moderation policies, and corporate priorities. More importantly, it could set a precedent: if companies profit from engagement that harms children, they will answer for it.
We cannot afford to treat this as just another lawsuit. This is a moment for society to insist that technology serves the people, not the other way around especially when the people in question are children. The question is clear: will social media companies be held responsible, or will profits continue to outweigh human cost?
.png&w=3840&q=75)
