Social Media Companies Found Liable for Harm to Children

We’re witnessing a significant shift regarding social media accountability. Recently, two juries—one in New Mexico and another in California—made groundbreaking decisions, marking the first time social media companies have been held accountable for harming minors. This is truly historic.

The verdict from the Los Angeles trial is especially noteworthy. It allowed a lawsuit that used tort law to claim that social media platforms, particularly Meta and YouTube, caused mental health issues for a plaintiff referred to as “Kaylee.” The jury determined that these companies were negligent in creating addictive products that posed risks to children, all while failing to provide adequate warnings about their dangers. Such a case had never even made it to trial before, much less ended with a conviction.

For over ten years, children and teens affected by social media’s implications—ranging from suicidal thoughts and self-harm to eating disorders—have struggled to find justice. Typically, if a toy was defective or food toxic, parents could seek legal recourse. Social media, however, had largely evaded this scrutiny.

Tech firms have relied heavily on Section 230, which protects them from liability stemming from the speech of third parties on their platforms. Lawsuits concerning social media’s harmful effects on kids often got dismissed due to this immunity.

No longer. This case took a fresh legal avenue, targeting the addictive designs and features of social media—like recommendation algorithms and endless scrolling—without focusing just on specific content.

The jury interpreted the evidence effectively. For example, during his testimony, Facebook’s co-founder Mark Zuckerberg faced tough questions about his decision to allow beauty filters on Instagram, despite warnings from experts about their potential damage to teenage girls. He seemed to brush it off, suggesting that it was an overreach to prevent people from expressing themselves.

Internal emails presented to the jury revealed a rather alarming view among executives, noting things like, “Young people are the best,” and acknowledging that Instagram operates much like a drug. This indicated a clear acknowledgment that these platforms are designed to capture and hold kids’ attention, and they failed to take necessary precautions for user safety. Mark Lanier, leading attorney for the plaintiffs, emphasized that this ruling sends a potent message of accountability.

Interestingly, there are thousands more cases waiting to be trialed—about 3,000 in California alone. This ruling might encourage tech companies to settle other cases rather than risk another trial. With payouts potentially exceeding the $6 million awarded in this case multiplied across numerous cases, it could be a monumental moment for Big Tech, akin to the transformation in the tobacco industry.

Some supporters of Big Tech argue that this ruling suggests parents are relieved of their responsibility. However, the focus should actually be on the underlying issue—addictive products lacking effective parental controls and age verification measures. As mentioned in my book, social media companies often bypass parents to connect with their kids, recruiting young users without due diligence on age restrictions.

The ideal outcome of these forthcoming lawsuits shouldn’t merely be financial compensation but a fundamental change in how these companies operate. One pivotal lawsuit, backed by 40 state attorneys general, is set to go to trial this summer and could spur significant reforms.

Historically, in 1998, attorneys general from various states arrived at settlement agreements with major tobacco firms, leading to substantial changes in the industry, particularly around youth-targeted advertising. The potential for a similar settlement with social media companies exists, possibly requiring more robust age verification, parental consent for accounts, and possibly raising the minimum age for accounts.

It’s also possible to mandate the disabling of certain addictive features for users under a specific age. Social media doesn’t have to be inherently addictive, and this groundbreaking verdict signals a shift that might dramatically alter the landscape of the industry.