Overview:
Presence News was not granted reserved media seating for the second week of the Social Media Cases civil trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, despite submitting a timely request and observing unused media seating during jury selection. The article outlines the court’s media access procedures, documents the request timeline, and examines broader transparency considerations surrounding coverage of high-profile public interest litigation involving major technology companies.
Los Angeles, CA — Presence News was not granted reserved media seating for the second week of proceedings in the high-profile Social Media Cases trial (JCCP5255) in Los Angeles Superior Court, despite submitting a timely request and observing unused media seating during jury selection the prior week.
The case, which involves major social media platforms including Meta, YouTube, and TikTok, is being heard in Department 12 at the Spring Street Courthouse under the supervision of Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl. Opening statements are scheduled to begin during the first week of February.
Media request timeline
According to Presence News records, the court’s communications office distributed procedural information regarding media access late in the evening on January 29, 2026. Presence News submitted its request for reserved media seating approximately 21 minutes after receiving the notice. No response or confirmation was received prior to the stated deadline, and no media badge was issued for the second week of trial proceedings.
Court procedures regarding media access
The court outlined that media seating for the trial is limited due to courtroom capacity and that submitting a request does not guarantee access. Reserved seating was described as applying to the duration of the trial, with seating decisions communicated following the request deadline.
During jury selection, the court employed a first-come, first-served approach for media seating. After jury selection, a reserved seating system was implemented, with media outlets required to obtain credentials in advance. The court also communicated strict restrictions on photography, filming, broadcasting, live transmission, and the use of electronic devices inside the courtroom.
On-site observations during jury selection
Presence News was present on site during jury selection proceedings in late January. During that period, multiple seats designated for media were observed unoccupied at various times. No public explanation was provided regarding how media seats were allocated or why available seating remained unused while credentialed outlets awaited confirmation.
Public interest and transparency considerations
The Social Media Cases trial has drawn national attention due to its focus on the role of major technology companies in public health, youth safety, and platform accountability. Given the significance of the proceedings, access for a broad range of media organizations — including independent and digital-first outlets — plays an important role in ensuring public understanding and transparency.
While courts routinely balance access with logistical constraints, inconsistent or opaque allocation of media seating can raise questions about how coverage of major public interest cases is facilitated.
Although the proceedings are civil rather than criminal, courts have long recognized a qualified First Amendment and common-law right of public access to civil trials. Media access decisions remain discretionary but are generally expected to be administered using clear and consistent criteria.
Continuing coverage
Presence News will continue to seek lawful access to observe and report on proceedings of public significance and will provide updates as information becomes publicly available.
Editor’s note: This article summarizes publicly communicated court procedures regarding media access and firsthand observations by Presence News. The court’s internal notice is not reproduced.
More at Presence News:
