YouTube settles as Meta executives may testify in addiction trial

YouTube has settled with the two bellwether plaintiffs set for the next social media addiction trial in Los Angeles, leaving Meta and Snapchat to face trial next month.

Meta and Snap deny liability. At a final status conference Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl cleared the way for Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri to testify in November, rejecting Meta's bid to block their trial testimony.

For now, Zuckerberg is expected to take the stand Nov. 10, followed by Mosseri on Nov. 19, under a tentative scheduling agreement disclosed during the hearing.

Snap CEO Evan Spiegel is also expected to testify, though the parties said they are still working on a date for his appearance.

Lanier Law Firm attorneys Mariana Aroditis and Rachel Lanier said during a break outside the courtroom that YouTube settled Friday with both plaintiffs, identified as S.J. and K.D.B., on undisclosed terms. YouTube joins TikTok in resolving the plaintiffs' claims before the Oct. 28 trial. YouTube and TikTok remain defendants in the broader coordinated litigation.

Tentative dates discussed Tuesday call for Zuckerberg to testify Nov. 10 and Mosseri Nov. 19. Snap CEO Evan Spiegel is also expected to testify, though the parties are still working on a date for his appearance.

Kuhl allowed the parties to work on arrangements for video testimony by the company executives but indicated she would not allow other witnesses, including whistleblowers, to be similarly recorded because they are not apex witnesses.

Zuckerberg and Mosseri testified in the first bellwether trial, which ended in March with a $6 million verdict for plaintiff Kaley G.M. against Meta and YouTube on claims that defective platform design substantially contributed to her mental health harms. Social Media Cases, JCCP 5255 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 24, 2022).

Tuesday's hearing did not finish before press deadline as Kuhl worked through some motions and other pretrial disputes over what evidence and expert testimony jurors will be allowed to hear.

Among them was a defense request for additional discovery involving journals kept by K.D.B., which defendants say could bear on her claims of continuing mental health harm.

Wilkinson Stekloff partner Keri Arnold, for Meta, said recently produced Instagram messages contain more than 70 references to K.D.B.'s journaling between 2023 and 2025. The defense is seeking additional journals and a supplemental deposition.

Plaintiffs opposed reopening discovery less than a month before trial, arguing defendants had known about K.D.B.'s journaling for more than a year and could have pursued the material earlier.

Morgan & Morgan partner Emily Jeffcott said K.D.B. believed she had provided one journal to her attorneys during discovery, but her attorneys never received it and turned it over after discovering the omission.

"This desire to reopen, it's becoming a habit," Jeffcott said, pointing to similar disputes before a July bellwether that was canceled after a Florida minor identified as R.K.C. settled with Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube and dismissed his claims against Meta without payment.

Kuhl said she would continue considering the journal dispute but rejected a broader defense request to reopen the plaintiffs' depositions simply because time had passed since they were questioned.

A separate issue arose over S.J.'s apparent use of ChatGPT.

Defendants said a July Instagram message indicated she appeared to be using the chatbot to discuss her feelings and requested related records and a possible limited supplemental deposition. Kuhl directed the parties to discuss the issue further before she considers it.

The parties also clashed over evidence of alleged inappropriate interactions between adults and the plaintiffs on social media.

Defendants sought to exclude evidence involving grooming, sextortion and similar child-safety issues, arguing the plaintiffs had not tied their alleged harms to platform recommendation features.

Lanier said the plaintiffs were "not trying to make this a grooming case," but argued they should be allowed to present their experiences with adults on the platforms if defendants point to inappropriate real-world interactions as alternative causes of their mental health harms.

The parties also sparred over what Meta could tell jurors about more recent safety measures and a recent settlement involving the company if the case reaches a punitive damages phase.

Covington & Burling LLP partner Paul W. Schmidt, for Meta, argued that later changes did not mean the company's earlier approach was improper.

"Just because we're wiser today doesn't mean we were foolish yesterday," Schmidt said.

The coordinated litigation includes thousands of lawsuits accusing social media companies of designing platforms with addictive features that harmed young users.