Share 
The “KGM trial” currently underway in Los Angeles may center on social media platforms, but the outcome could have significant ramifications for the sports betting industry. Social media giants like Meta stand accused of sparking and fueling addiction among their users—a charge increasingly leveled against sports betting platforms.
KGM refers to Kaley G.M., a young woman who claims her addiction to Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube caused or worsened her mental health struggles. She alleges the platforms fueled her anxiety and body dysmorphia while making her a target for online bullying. Her case is before Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Over the past week, a jury has heard competing arguments over whether social media causes addiction in children, leading to documented mental health harms.
While the case does not involve sports betting directly, the parallels are striking. Leagues, teams, and athletes regularly use social media to recruit and retain young fans. From a broader perspective, the KGM trial could invite fresh scrutiny regarding the addictive nature of sports betting and prediction market apps.
The mechanics of algorithmic addiction
Many features of social media are designed to encourage compulsive use. One such feature is “infinite scrolling,” which prevents users from reaching the bottom of a page, encouraging them to scroll without limits.
Other features cited include “auto-play,” where new videos begin immediately after the previous one ends, and push notifications sent at all hours to create a false sense of urgency. Even “reactions”—such as likes or emojis—are alleged to manipulate young people’s emotions. Furthermore, feeds are algorithmically tailored using harvested data to maximize time on the app.
The neurobiology of the “dopamine gap”
Legal arguments linking social media to mental health often focus on dopamine, a neurotransmitter central to the brain’s reward system.
Social media platforms manipulate this system by spacing out rewards (likes and shares) with “dopamine gaps.” Research shows dopamine levels rise in children when they receive social validation online. This is particularly problematic for adolescents, who are more susceptible to withdrawal symptoms—such as irritability and anxiety—when the chemical “hit” wears off.
Meta’s defense: Section 230 and parental responsibility
Meta argues that its services did not cause Kaley’s problems, disputing the underlying theory of liability. The defense highlighted Kaley’s health records, pointing to emotional distress stemming from her parents’ divorce when she was 3 years old. This is a critical legal hurdle: negligence requires proof that the defendant’s specific wrongdoing caused the alleged harm.
The defense also cited broader protections, including:
- Terms of Service: Arguing that sign-up agreements bar such lawsuits.
- Safety Features: Highlighting age-appropriate filters for users under 18.
- Legal Safeguards: Citing the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields platforms from liability for third-party content.
According to an analysis by Sportico, in testimony last week, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg insisted his platforms have sought “reasonable” positions on privacy. He rejected the “addictive” label, arguing instead that the products have “long-term appeal.”
A impending regulatory reckoning
Regardless of the verdict, a reckoning appears imminent. Beyond litigation, lawmakers are pushing for youth social media bans. Australia recently became the first country to ban social media for children under 16. In the US, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has advocated for similar restrictions.
“Social media platforms are stages,” says Leah Plunkett, a Harvard Law School professor and author of Sharenthood.
“Many kids perform on them, often for money. Many kids are in the audience, effectively paying to watch with their attention, personal information and, at times, at the expense of their own health.”
From social feeds to bet slips: A new precedent
If social media companies are held accountable for addiction, other app-based industries may be next. While sports leagues claim their apps are not directed toward children, many of their engagement tools—prizes, short-form video, and gamification—clearly appeal to younger fans.
Sports betting apps are particularly vulnerable. Despite age verification tools, a 2023 NCAA report found that 67% of college students living on campus had engaged in sports betting. The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) at Northeastern University School of Law argues that aggressive marketing and ease of access have turned sports betting into a public health crisis.
The legal tide may already be turning. Last week, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Debra A. Squires-Lee partially denied DraftKings’ motion for summary judgment in Scanlon & Harris v. DraftKings. The case involves claims of misleading advertisements and deceptive sign-up bonuses. While the judge noted that “there is no such thing as a free lunch,” she ruled that a jury must decide if the ads had the capacity to mislead reasonable consumers.
PHAI executive director Mark Gottlieb noted that sports gambling platforms use the same advanced algorithms as social media to maximize “time on device.”
“The science is quite clear,” Gottlieb said. “These are products known to addict many of their users in ways that destroy lives and families.”
