Streaks, Push Alerts and View Counts Go Before a Jury as the Meta and Snap Addiction Trial Opens

Jury selection began on Wednesday, October 28, in Los Angeles Superior Court in the next bellwether trial over claims that social media apps were designed to hook children. This time the defendants are Meta and Snap, and the case centers on features that most product teams treat as ordinary engagement tools: Snapstreaks, push notifications and visible view counts.

For anyone who designs, approves or audits a consumer app used by teenagers, this trial matters less for its eventual verdict than for what it puts on the record. The plaintiffs’ theory is that specific design choices, not just harmful content, caused injury. If juries keep accepting that theory, design decisions become a liability question as much as a product question.

The case in brief

The complaint was filed on behalf of two teenage girls. One of them, an 18-year-old from Mississippi identified as “K.D.B.,” says her compulsive use of Snapchat and Instagram contributed to depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicidal thoughts. Her lawyers argue that “the addictive qualities of Defendants’ products and their harmful algorithms are not fully known or understood by minor users or their parents.”

Both companies deny the claims. A Snap spokesperson told ABC News that Snapchat “opens to a camera, not a feed,” that the company has built in safeguards and safety tools, and that the allegations “fundamentally misrepresent the plaintiffs’ experiences.” Meta said it disagrees with the allegations, that “a young person’s mental health is shaped by many factors,” and that the plaintiff used TikTok far more than Instagram or Facebook. Meta also pointed to its Teen Accounts and to its agreement with state attorneys general that includes time limits, no access at night and no notifications during school hours.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are expected to testify in November.

What came before

This is not the first trial in the same courtroom. In March, a jury found Meta and YouTube negligent and awarded the plaintiff, known as “K.G.M.,” $6 million in damages. The companies are appealing. Snap and TikTok settled before that trial began.

In August, Meta reached a settlement with a large group of states in which it agreed to pay up to $18 billion and change its apps for young users, including time limits, disabling some filters and hiding like counts. Meta did not admit wrongdoing. Reports describe the group differently: ABC News refers to 48 states, while Meta’s statement refers to 52 bipartisan attorneys general, a count that may include territories and the District of Columbia. Meta is now urging TikTok, YouTube and Snap to adopt the same changes as an industry standard.

State enforcers have been moving on several fronts at once, as our review of how states are raising the stakes on kids’ and teens’ privacy shows. Snap in particular has faced state action before, including Utah’s lawsuit over teen safety.

Why design features are on trial

Older lawsuits against platforms often ran into the argument that companies are not responsible for what users post. The addiction cases avoid that by targeting how the product works. The features named in this complaint are a good map of where that argument points:

• Streaks reward daily use and penalize breaks, which plaintiffs say creates pressure to keep returning.
• Push notifications pull users back into the app, including at night or during school.
• View counts and similar metrics invite social comparison, which plaintiffs link to anxiety and low self-esteem.
• Recommendation algorithms decide what a young user sees next, and plaintiffs argue their effects were not disclosed.

Each of these features also relies on personal data: usage patterns, contact graphs, timestamps, device signals. That is where privacy and product safety meet. A company cannot assess the risk of a streak feature without knowing what data drives it and who it is shown to.

A six-point design review for teen-facing products

The verdict will not be known for weeks. In the meantime, companies whose products reach teenagers can run a review that would be useful whatever the jury decides. None of this is a legal safe harbor. It is a way to know what you would say if asked.

1. List every engagement feature. Include streaks, badges, autoplay, infinite scroll, notifications and public metrics. Note which ones are on by default for minors.
2. Map the data behind each feature. Record what is collected, who receives it, the purpose and how long it is kept.
3. Check notification timing. Can a minor receive pushes at night or during school hours? The industry settlement terms make this a clear benchmark.
4. Document the trade-offs. If a feature was kept after a risk was identified, write down why and what mitigation was added.
5. Test the controls. A setting in the menu is not proof that it works. Verify defaults and parental controls on real accounts.
6. Align public statements with reality. Safety claims in marketing and app store listings will be compared with internal documents in litigation.

The legislative backdrop

Courts are moving faster than Congress. The Kids Online Safety Act has gained momentum again, with Senator Ted Cruz committing to pass KOSA before the end of 2026. States are not waiting: New Jersey’s Kids Code Act adds age-appropriate design rules and a private right of action. Design codes and addiction trials push in the same direction, toward judging products by how they affect young users rather than by what their terms of service say.

Where Captain Compliance helps

Captain Compliance supports the documentation side of this work. Our privacy risk management tools, assessments and data mapping help teams record which features use which data, what risks were identified and what was done about them. Our consent and preference tools help manage what users and parents have agreed to. We cannot tell you whether a jury will find a design feature harmful, and no tool can guarantee that outcome. We can help you show the work behind your decisions.

Frequently asked questions

Who are the parties in the new Los Angeles trial?

Two teenage plaintiffs, including an 18-year-old from Mississippi known as K.D.B., against Meta and Snap.

What happened in the earlier bellwether trial?

In March, a jury found Meta and YouTube negligent and awarded $6 million to the plaintiff K.G.M. The companies are appealing. Snap and TikTok settled before that trial.

Did Meta admit wrongdoing in its settlement with the states?

No. Meta agreed to pay up to $18 billion and change its apps for young users without admitting wrongdoing.

What is a bellwether trial?

A trial chosen from a large group of similar cases to test how juries respond to the evidence and arguments. Results can shape settlement talks in the remaining cases, but they do not bind other courts.

Is a streak feature illegal?

No law bans streaks outright. The plaintiffs argue such features contributed to harm in their cases, and some state laws and settlements restrict related practices for minors.

The testimony to watch

When Zuckerberg, Spiegel and Mosseri take the stand in November, they will be asked to explain, under oath, why particular features were built and kept. Their answers will be read closely in every product meeting where a growth metric competes with a teenager’s sleep.