Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
AI Risks | Jan 28, 2026

Image: Freepik
On January 27, 2026, a landmark trial begins in Los Angeles Superior Court that forces major tech companies to explain how their algorithms work. The defendants include Meta and YouTube, as both TikTok and Snap reached a settlement just before trial, leaving Meta and YouTube to proceed before a jury.
Hundreds of families, teens, and school districts accuse social media platforms of intentionally designing products that keep young people addicted. The scale is hard to ignore. The coordinated cases include roughly 1,600 plaintiffs, more than 350 families, and about 250 school districts.
The first trial focuses on a 19 year old identified as KGM and is expected to last six to eight weeks. It is the first of about 22 test cases that will guide how thousands of similar lawsuits proceed. A separate federal case involving more than 235 plaintiffs, including attorneys general from nearly three dozen U.S. states, is scheduled to begin in San Francisco in June 2026.
This isn't just a social media story. Courts are no longer looking only at what people post. They are looking 'under the hood' at how systems are built to see if and how algorithms are influencing behaviour at scale.
For years, technology companies leaned on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996 to avoid liability tied to online activity. That protection still exists for user generated content. What changes here is the focus. Judges are allowing these cases to proceed because the claims target design choices.
Plaintiffs argue that features like infinite scroll, video autoplay, notifications, and recommendation systems encourage compulsive use. In a November 2025 ruling, the judge ruled that jurors must examine platform design choices rather than focusing only on user generated content.
That opens the door to evidence most companies prefer to keep internal. Product research, feature testing, internal discussions, and decision making around engagement will now move into public view. The question's are simple and uncomfortable. Why did the system work this way?
The plaintiffs seek more than damages. They also ask the court to order changes to how the platforms operate, which could set safety rules for the whole industry. If courts agree that algorithm design causes harm, the impact reaches far beyond a single verdict.
Executives from the biggest platforms may testify, including leaders from Meta, YouTube, Instagram, and Snap. Plaintiffs openly compare their strategy to tobacco cases from the 1990s, where internal documents and sworn testimony changed how courts and the public viewed addiction.
Recent settlements highlight the pressure cooker. Snap settled shortly before trial in one lead case. TikTok settled hours before jury selection began. Financial terms stay confidential, but the timing confirms risks companies would prefer not to explain in court.
These trials are taking place at a time when algorithms do more than recommend content. They adapt, learn, and optimize constantly. Modern systems adjust in real time based on user behaviour. Reinforcement loops scale instantly.
In January 2026, Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei warns that AI risks are arriving faster than governance can keep up. In a 19,000 word essay called, 'The Adolescence of Technology", he writes:
“Humanity is about to be handed almost unimaginable power, and it is deeply unclear whether our social, political, and technological systems possess the maturity to wield it.”
Courts are now peering into that gap. When rules lag and impact grows, litigation becomes a way to force transparency. Judges and juries start asking questions regulators have not yet answered.
Financial services already run on algorithms. Credit decisions, fraud detection, transaction monitoring, pricing, robo advice, and nudges all rely on systems that influence user behaviour. These lawsuits do not accuse fintechs of wrongdoing, but they can change how accountability works.
If courts see algorithm design as a product choice that predictably affects people, then how those systems are built really matters. Why a system pushes certain outcomes, what it favours, and where it slows users down can end up being questions for a judge or jury, not just a product team.
For founders and institutions, it's about building systems you can explain. Clear design goals, documented tradeoffs, and guardrails reduce exposure and build trust with users, partners, and regulators.
As plaintiffs’ attorney Matthew Bergman puts it, “The fact that a social media company is going to have to stand trial before a jury … is unprecedented.” Courts now ask companies to explain their design decisions in plain language, under oath, and in public. That expectation will not disappear. Innovation keeps moving fast. Accountability now moves with it.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Leave a Reply