Just over a year after Mark Zuckerberg joined other tech lords at Donald Trump‘s second inauguration, the CEO is going to find himself testifying in an LA courtroom on the dangers and potentially fatal harm that Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and Snap are accused of inflicting on young users.

The presence of the increasingly MAGA friendly billionaire was sealed after a ruling in LA Superior Court Wednesday almost uniformly rejected immunity arguments by the social media companies. Meta, Google, TikTok current owner ByteDance, SNAP had hoped to see a consultation of cases involving hardcore mental health issues claims against them dismissed based on elements of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment.

Moving towards the first trial on the consequences of social media on youth, Judge Carolyn Kuhl rejected the companies POV, asserting that the platforms “were capable of causing the type of mental harms allegedly suffered.”

“The real question for this court is whether there is any evidence that creates a disputed question of material fact as to whether design features of Meta’s social media platforms were a substantial factor in causing R.K.C.’s injuries,” wrote the LASC judge her late November 5 ruling in tossing out
summary judgment or summary adjudication in one of the cases, first filed in 2023. “There is such evidence.”

“For example, R.K.C. has presented his own deposition testimony that he was distracted, anxious and deprived of sleep due to the urge to check notifications sent by Meta. This disputed factual question must be decided by the jury.”

The ruling by Judge Kuhl on behalf of plaintiffs Moore, K.G.M., and R.K.C. clears the path for a January 27, 2026 starting trial in DTLA. At the heart of this first of what could be many such trials is the premise that social media and its algorithms and sticky attraction have harsh consequences of thoughts of suicide, depression, sleep disruption, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, and anxiety.

Last month, after a legion of high priced lawyers unsuccessfully argued their CEO clients had somewhat limited knowledge of their own companies, Judge Kuhl determined that the often evasive Zuckerberg, along with SNAP boss Evan Spiegel and Instagram’s Adam Mosseri, would have to take the stand. As members of the Senate did in a sometimes volatile session with Zuckerberg (who would later pay Trump $25 million in a knee bending lawsuit settlement) Spiegel, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, and others in early 2024, the judge anticipated the CEOs set to appear before her would offer up “unique” testimony on the “addictive” and “compulsive” nature of their globally used products.

“The testimony of a CEO is uniquely relevant, as that officer’s knowledge of harms, and failure to take available steps to avoid such harms could establish negligence or ratification of negligent conduct,” the LASC judge said with a dollop of understatement. With the trio of cases moving forward, it would not be unprecedented for the tech companies to try to settle – or not

In the case of YouTube, parent company Google insists the judge and the cases just don’t get it.

“These lawsuits fundamentally misunderstand how YouTube works and the allegations are simply not true,” a Google spokesperson todl Deadline today. “YouTube is a streaming service where people come to watch everything from live sports, to podcasts to their favorite creators, primarily on TV screens, not a social network where people go to catch up with friends. We’ve also developed dedicated tools like Supervised Experiences for young people, guided by child safety experts, that give families control.”

 “We remain focused on preparing for trial and look forward to explaining why Plaintiffs’ allegations against Snap are wrong factually and as a matter of law,” said attorneys Thursday for the multimedia and instant messaging app. “Snapchat was designed differently from traditional social media; it opens to the camera, allowing Snapchatters to connect with family and friends in an environment that prioritizes their safety and privacy.”

Representatives for Zuckerberg’s Meta and ByteDance’s TikTok did not respond to request for comment on Judge Kuhl’s latest ruling. Zuckerberg’s “move fast and break things”vowing company is already facing a 2023 action up in San Francisco by over 40 states claiming “Meta has been harming our children and teens, cultivating addiction to boost corporate profits.” No trial date has been set for that matter yet.

With that, the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the LA cases made sure they had something to say on what could end up being pivotal cases and trials.

“These rulings affirm that tech companies must face accountability for the design choices they make—choices that can profoundly affect the mental health of young users,” plaintiffs attorneys from firms Kiesel Law, Lanier Law Firm, Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP, and Beasley Allen said Thursday. “We are grateful that the Court recognized the importance of letting a jury decide whether these platforms caused harm to these Plaintiffs.”

Which, in a social reckoning kind of way, is a lawyer’s way of giving the ruling a like.