Meta’s legal setback may benefit children, but it could have broader implications for all.
Is social media not just problematic, but potentially illegal? Should tech companies be held accountable for its negative impact? According to two recent jury verdicts in the U.S. — along with a wave of external opinions — the answer appears to be a resounding “yes.”
This week, juries in New Mexico and Los Angeles found Meta liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for harming minors. YouTube also faced liability in Los Angeles, and both companies are appealing these decisions. On one hand, these rulings are surprising; Meta and Google typically enjoy protections under Section 230 and the First Amendment, making it rare for lawsuits to overcome these legal barriers. On the other hand, given the current landscape of 2026, where a few widely criticized for-profit platforms dominate, the outcome feels almost inevitable. The harm caused by these platforms is often evident, but the long-term implications of these verdicts remain uncertain.
If these rulings withstand appeal — which is not guaranteed — the immediate result could be hefty financial penalties. Depending on the outcomes of additional key cases in Los Angeles, a broader settlement could emerge in the future. Even at this early stage, this marks a significant win for the legal argument that social media platforms should be treated like defective products — a strategy aimed at circumventing Section 230 protections, though it has often faltered in court. “The California case is the first instance where social media has faced the scrutiny and judgment of a jury for specific personal injuries,” said attorney Carrie Goldberg, who has been instrumental in advancing early social media liability cases. “This signals the dawn of a new era.”
For many advocates, the overarching aim is to emphasize that lawsuits will continue to accumulate if companies don’t alter their business practices. What kind of changes are needed? In New Mexico, the jury was convinced by claims that Meta misled users about the safety of its platforms. In Los Angeles, plaintiffs successfully argued that Instagram and YouTube were designed to foster social media addiction, which harmed a teenage user. Meta and Google, along with other anxious companies, might need to modify certain features or exercise more caution in their public communications. However, each case hinges on specific circumstances, and there’s no universal solution for what needs to change.
Legal expert Eric Goldman sees significant legal risks ahead for social media platforms. “These rulings suggest that juries are prepared to impose substantial liability on social media providers based on claims of addiction,” he noted after the verdicts. He pointed out that judges are increasingly aware of the controversies surrounding social media. In the Los Angeles case and other forthcoming trials, “judges have not extended much benefit of the doubt to social media defendants, which is why these novel cases have made it to trial.” He believes the current climate feels markedly different from a decade ago.
Goldman also highlighted that states like New York and California have enacted laws prohibiting “addictive” social media features for teens, meaning that even if an appeals court overturns the recent rulings, the regulatory landscape may not revert to its previous state.
The most optimistic outcome has been articulated by commentators who argue that companies should be compelled to eliminate “toxic” features such as infinite scrolling, beauty filters that promote body image issues, and algorithms that prioritize sensational content. Conversely, some warn that these rulings could spell trouble for smaller social networks, which might face lawsuits for allowing users to engage in First Amendment-protected speech under vague harm standards. One notable point in the New Mexico case was the argument that Meta harmed children by providing end-to-end encryption in private messaging, potentially leading to the removal of features that enhance user privacy — a concern that became reality when Meta discontinued end-to-end encryption on Instagram earlier this month.
Blake Reid, a professor at Colorado Law, takes a more cautious stance. “It’s difficult to predict what will happen next,” he remarked. He noted that companies are likely to seek “cold, calculated” ways to minimize legal liability while avoiding major disruptions to their operations, rather than fundamentally rethinking their business models. “There are clear harms here, and it’s crucial that the legal system acknowledges those harms,” he stated. “However, the aftermath of these cases is less certain.”
While Reid acknowledges the legal risks for smaller platforms, he believes they may not be more severe than the challenges faced by new entrants in a highly consolidated online environment driven by extensive data collection. “There are significant barriers to innovation in this space, influenced by market dynamics and surrounding policies,” he explained.
Goldman, Reid, and others caution that the fallout from these rulings could disproportionately affect marginalized groups who rely on social media for connection. “There will be stronger pushes to restrict or ban children from social media,” Goldman warned. “This could isolate many vulnerable minors, including LGBTQ teens who benefit from online communities and those on the autism spectrum who find it easier to express themselves digitally than in person.”
If platforms like Instagram are inherently harmful and comparable to gambling or cigarettes, as critics often claim, then their removal might not be a significant loss. However, even research indicating that social media can be detrimental to adolescents has linked moderate use to improved well-being. Moreover, harmful online content, such as harassment and communities promoting eating disorders, thrived long before the rise of algorithm-driven, hyper-optimized social media; tweaking specific algorithms might yield some positive effects, but it may not provide a comprehensive or lasting solution. The desire to hold Meta accountable is clear, but the broader implications for the rest of the industry remain murky.
