For over ten years, children who have faced the consequences of social media, along with their families, have sought justice for issues like anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and even worse outcomes such as suicide. This week marks a significant moment as these cases finally go to court.
The first pilot trial against a social media company commenced in Los Angeles on Tuesday, setting the stage for numerous similar cases that are currently pending. Companies like Meta, TikTok, Snap, and YouTube are facing upwards of 3,000 lawsuits in California alone, with an additional 2,000 filed in federal courts.
Some surprising evidence has already surfaced. An internal message from a Meta employee likened Instagram to drugs, with remarks like, “Oh my god, IG is a drug,” and, “We’re basically pushers.”
This case represents a significant development. It’s rare to witness such evidence brought forth in a social media-related lawsuit, allowing both the court and the public to understand the choices these companies have made regarding young users.
Historically, lawsuits against social media companies have been dismissed due to a 1996 law known as Section 230, which protects internet platforms from liability for third-party content. However, the current lawsuits are taking a different approach. They’re not just blaming harmful content — instead, they argue that the actual features of the platforms are what inflict harm on users.
This perspective shifts the focus away from just criticizing screen time or inappropriate content. Instead, it places responsibility on the companies for crafting addictive features while failing to warn users of the potential dangers.
Elements that contribute to this addiction include endless scrolling, autoplay, recommendation algorithms that can draw minors into excessive use, and features like notifications and likes. These all create an addictive loop that keeps users hooked.
Congress hasn’t updated child online safety laws since 1998, which is before social media became widespread, prompting parents to take action.
The central question for the jury in this trial is straightforward: Did these companies recklessly design and market highly addictive products for kids, knowing they could cause harm without providing adequate warnings?
Some critics claim that these lawsuits may not be suitable for the courtroom, arguing that it’s challenging for individuals to link their social media use to specific harms, given the complex nature of personal experiences and online exposure.
Similar arguments were previously made against legal actions concerning tobacco and opioid manufacturers, with opponents asserting that addiction has many causes. But history shows that these major lawsuits lead to substantial settlements for those affected by these industries. The current social media lawsuits seem to be on a similar trajectory.
Evidence indicates that Meta and other platforms intentionally crafted their products to be addictive, with youth addiction even being a stated goal. Internal documents reveal discussions and studies showing that children’s attention was quantified for profit, and their products were designed knowing they could harm young users.
For instance, one Meta study highlighted that teens struggle to disengage from Instagram, even when they want to. Youth have described their experiences with the platform, sharing feelings of compulsion and negative emotions tied to their use.
Now, for the first time, parents and young individuals will have a chance to present their cases in court. In fact, Snap and TikTok opted to settle before the trial commenced, possibly to avoid having damaging internal evidence revealed.
Given that Congress hasn’t taken action to regulate online child safety in decades, states and parents are stepping up to hold social media companies accountable, even if federal legislation remains stagnant. This trial may very well represent a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle against Big Tech.
