Social Media Addiction Trial Opens 4 November With Snap Alone

Snap is the only defendant left in a social media addiction trial that opens in Los Angeles on 4 November 2026. Meta settled with both teenage plaintiffs on 29 and 30 October, after TikTok and YouTube had already settled. Terms in every one of those agreements are confidential.

What Happens on 4 November

Opening statements are scheduled for Wednesday 4 November 2026 before Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, who presides over the coordinated Social Media Cases in the Complex Division of Los Angeles Superior Court, in the United States.

Jury selection began on Wednesday 28 October 2026. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have said they expect the trial to run until mid-December. The case was filed in 2023 and sits inside a California Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding, or JCCP, numbered 5255 — the mechanism California uses to group related civil cases from different counties before one judge.

As of 2 November 2026, Snap Inc., the company behind Snapchat, is the sole remaining defendant and has not announced a settlement. Everything below describes a case in a United States state court; it is not a ruling, and it applies to no other jurisdiction.

Who Settled, and When

Three of the four original defendants settled before the jury was sworn in, and none of them disclosed a figure.

A settlement is not an admission of liability, and none of the three companies accepted fault. A Meta spokesperson said that “trials, dismissals and settlements are all common in the bellwether process, and this litigation is no exception”. People close to Meta told Agence France-Presse the company settled for business reasons, an account attributed to unnamed sources rather than confirmed by the company.

Emily Jeffcott, trial counsel for K.D.B., said her side was “pleased to have brought this matter to a just resolution on behalf of our client”.

Snap Settled the First Two Bellwether Trials

Snap has already settled the two earlier test cases in this same proceeding rather than put them to a jury, which makes 4 November the first time it argues one of these claims at trial.

The company disclosed this itself. In Snap’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended 30 June 2026, the contingencies note states that “Snap reached a confidential settlement agreement resolving the first and second JCCP bellwether trials for Snap”. The same filing says bellwether trials in the JCCP “started in January 2026” and that “the next two JCCP bellwether trials including Snap are scheduled to begin in October 2026”.

A bellwether is a test case: a small number of claims chosen from a large group and tried first, so that both sides learn how juries respond to the evidence before the rest are resolved. Snap has not said publicly why it settled the earlier two and is contesting this one, and the filing does not address the question.

Sources disagree on which number this trial carries. NBC News describes it as the fourth bellwether in the consolidated group; The Epoch Times calls it the third. The court has not published a numbering that resolves the difference.

What the Two Plaintiffs Allege

The two plaintiffs say Snapchat was built to maximise the time young users spend on it, and that compulsive use damaged their mental health.

They are identified in court records by their initials. S.J. is a 16-year-old from Illinois who began using social media at 13; K.D.B. is an 18-year-old from Mississippi who began at 15. Their lawyers point to specific Snapchat features — Snapstreaks, which count consecutive days of exchanging messages, Snapscores, push notifications and image filters — as the mechanisms they say drive compulsive use.

The alleged harms include depression, anxiety, disordered eating, self-harm and body dysmorphia. These are allegations in a pleading. No court has found them proved, and the jury has not heard evidence. Claims of this kind have historically run into Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act, which shields online services from liability for what users post; the plaintiffs’ theory sidesteps it by attacking product design rather than content.

What Snap Says in Its Defence

Snap denies the claims and argues Snapchat is not built like a conventional social network.

A company spokesperson said the allegations “fundamentally misrepresent the plaintiffs’ experiences on Snapchat and how our platform was designed”, and added: “We believe the evidence will support that we have put our community first.” Snap’s position is that the app opens to a camera rather than to a ranked feed of other people’s posts, that it carries no social comparison metrics of the kind found elsewhere, and that it has added safeguards, safety tools and educational resources.

Before settling, Meta had argued that K.D.B.’s use of TikTok was a significant factor in her difficulties. That argument leaves the courtroom with Meta.

What a Bellwether Verdict Does and Does Not Decide

Whatever the jury returns will bind these two plaintiffs and Snap, and nobody else.

A bellwether verdict sets no precedent for the other claimants and does not decide their cases. Its practical weight is as information: it tells both sides what a jury makes of the evidence, which in turn shapes what settlements are offered and accepted in the cases behind it. Those cases are numerous:

• The California proceeding: JCCP 5255 covers more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including over 350 families and more than 250 school districts, according to NBC News.
• The federal proceeding: MDL 3047, the Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, had 3,824 actions pending of 4,009 filed, on the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s report dated 1 October 2026. It sits before Chief Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California.
• Outside the United States: Snap’s Form 10-Q discloses that putative class actions making similar allegations have been filed in Canada and Israel.

Legislatures have been moving on the same questions in parallel with the courts, including the California chatbot law passed in September 2026, which sets default limits on children’s accounts.

The Payouts Already on the Record

Two figures from this litigation are public, and both come from matters separate from the Snap trial.

On 25 March 2026, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in the design or operation of their platforms in the first of these cases to reach a verdict, brought by a plaintiff known as K.G.M. The jury awarded $3 million in United States dollars in compensatory damages, apportioning 70% of responsibility to Meta, or $2.1 million, and 30% to YouTube, or $900,000. In a second phase it found the companies had acted with malice, oppression or fraud and added $3 million in punitive damages on the same split, for $6 million in total. Both companies said they disagreed with the verdict and would appeal, so the award is not final. Snap and TikTok had settled with K.G.M. before that trial began.

Separately, Meta announced on 26 August 2026 that it had agreed to settle claims brought by state attorneys general. Reported totals for that deal have ranged from $16.7 billion to about $18 billion, because outlets counted the components differently. The company’s own number is the one to go by: Meta’s third-quarter 2026 results release, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 21 October 2026, says the agreement with 52 attorneys general “provides for payments of up to approximately $18.59 billion”, and that third-quarter costs include a $9.89 billion charge related to it. That settlement still requires court approval, and it is a different case from the one opening on 4 November. It followed Meta’s third-quarter earnings disclosures, and came in a year that also produced a separate New Mexico judgment against the company.

What Is Still Undecided

Several things that will shape this trial were unresolved as of 2 November 2026.

• Whether Snap settles: three co-defendants settled within days of jury selection, and Snap could still do the same before opening statements.
• Whether the two claims are tried together: the defendants asked Judge Kuhl to split them into separate trials. CBS News reported that she had not ruled.
• Who testifies: Snap chief executive Evan Spiegel is widely expected to appear, which would be his first trial testimony, but the court has not published a witness list.
• The K.G.M. appeal: the $6 million verdict from March is being challenged and could be reduced, upheld or set aside.
• Approval of Meta’s state settlement: the agreement with the attorneys general is not yet approved by the court.

Filings and scheduling in the coordinated proceeding are recorded on the Los Angeles Superior Court docket for JCCP 5255, which is where the current status can be checked.

Frequently Asked Questions

When Does the Social Media Addiction Trial Start?

Opening statements are scheduled for 4 November 2026 in Los Angeles Superior Court. Jury selection began on 28 October 2026, and lawyers for the plaintiffs expect the trial to last until mid-December 2026.

Why Is Snap the Only Defendant Left?

TikTok and YouTube settled with both plaintiffs in the weeks before trial, and Meta settled with one plaintiff on 29 October 2026 and the other on 30 October 2026. All the terms are confidential, and none of the companies admitted liability.

Has Snap Settled Cases Like This Before?

Yes. Snap’s Form 10-Q for the period ended 30 June 2026 states that it reached a confidential settlement resolving the first and second JCCP bellwether trials in which it was a defendant. It has not said why it is contesting this one.

Does This Trial Decide the Other Social Media Lawsuits?

No. A bellwether verdict binds only the parties to that case. It sets no precedent for the more than 1,600 plaintiffs in the California proceeding or the 3,824 actions pending in the federal MDL as of 1 October 2026, though it does influence how those cases are valued in settlement talks.

Which Country Does This Case Apply To?

It is a civil trial in a California state court in the United States, and it decides claims under United States law only. Snap has disclosed that putative class actions making similar allegations were also filed in Canada and Israel; those are separate proceedings.