Is social media not just bad, but illegally bad? Should tech companies pay for making it that way? According to two US juries — and no shortage of outside commentary — the answer to both questions is “yes.”
Meta’s legal defeat could be a victory for children, or a loss for everyone
A jury said Instagram and YouTube are defective — now what?
A jury said Instagram and YouTube are defective — now what?
Earlier this week, two juries — one in New Mexico, one in Los Angeles — held Meta liable for a total of hundreds of millions of dollars for harming minors. YouTube was also found liable in Los Angeles, and both companies are appealing their losses. In one sense, the decisions were surprising. Meta and Google operate platforms for transmitting speech and are typically protected in a variety of ways by Section 230 and the First Amendment; it’s unusual for suits to clear these hurdles. In another, it feels inevitable. The web of 2026 has become almost synonymous with a few widely disliked for-profit platforms, and the harm they’ve caused is often tangible — but it’s still far from certain what this defeat will change, and what the collateral damage could be.
If these decisions survive appeal — which isn’t certain — the direct outcome would be multimillion-dollar penalties. Depending on the outcome of several more “bellwether” cases in Los Angeles, a much larger group settlement could be reached down the road. Even at this early stage, it’s a victory for a legal theory that social media platforms should be treated like defective products — a strategy designed to get around the shield of Section 230, but one that’s often failed in court. “The California case specifically is the first time social media has ever had to face the staredown and judgment of a jury for specific personal injuries,” attorney Carrie Goldberg, who pushed forward major early social media liability suits, including an unsuccessful case against Grindr, told The Verge. “It’s the dawn of a new era.”
“It’s the dawn of a new era.”
For many activists, the overall goal is to make clear that lawsuits will keep piling up if companies don’t change their business practices. What practices? In New Mexico, a jury was swayed by arguments that Meta had made statements misleading users about the safety of its platforms. In LA, the plaintiffs successfully claimed Instagram and YouTube were designed in a way that facilitated social media addiction that harmed a teenage user. Meta and Google (and other nervous companies) could plausibly change specific features or be more cautious in their public statements and disclosures. But each case depends on a set of highly specific circumstances, and there’s no one-size-fits-all answer about what needs to change.
Eric Goldman, a legal blogger and expert on Section 230, sees clear legal danger ahead for social media services. “These rulings indicate that juries are willing to impose major liability on social media providers based on claims of social media addiction,” Goldman wrote after the ruling. In an email to The Verge, he noted the issue was bigger than just juries. “Judges are certainly aware of the controversies around social media,” Goldman said. In the Los Angeles case and other upcoming bellwether trials, “the judges have not given social media defendants much benefit of the doubt, which is how the plaintiffs’ novel cases were able to reach trials in the first place.” It’s a situation, he says, that “does feel differently compared to a decade ago.”
Goldman pointed out that New York and California have also passed laws banning “addictive” social media feeds for teens — so even if an appeals court reverses the recent decisions, that won’t necessarily turn back the clock.
The best-case outcome of all this has been laid out by people like Julie Angwin, who wrote in The New York Times that companies should be pushed to change “toxic” features like infinite scrolling, beauty filters that encourage body dysmorphia, and algorithms that prioritize “shocking and crude” content. The worst-case scenario falls along the lines of a piece from Mike Masnick at Techdirt, who argued the rulings spell disaster for smaller social networks that could be sued for letting users post and see First Amendment-protected speech under a vague standard of harm. He noted that the New Mexico case hinged partly on arguing that Meta had harmed kids by providing end-to-end encryption in private messaging, creating an incentive to discontinue a feature that protects users’ privacy — and indeed, Meta discontinued end-to-end encryption on Instagram earlier this month.
“Judges have not given social media defendants much benefit of the doubt.”
Blake Reid, a professor at Colorado Law, is more circumspect. “It’s hard right now to forecast what’s going to happen,” Reid told The Verge in an interview. On Bluesky, he noted that companies will likely look for “cold, calculated” ways to avoid legal liability with the minimum possible disruption, not fundamentally rethink their business models. “There are obviously harms here and it’s pretty important that the tort system clocked those harms” in the recent cases, he told The Verge. “It’s just that what comes in the wake of them is less clear to me.”
While Reid sees legal risks for smaller platforms with fewer resources in these decisions, he’s not convinced they’re more serious than the challenges new entrants already face in a hyper-consolidated online landscape built on massive amounts of data collection. “There are things that make it hard to do something really new in this space that are driven by the sort of marketplace and the surrounding policy,” he said.
Reid, Goldman, and Masnick all warn there’s a clear chance that the fallout could harm marginalized people who use social media to connect. “There will be even stronger pushes to restrict or ban children from social media,” Goldman told The Verge. “This hurts many subpopulations of minors, ranging from LGBTQ teens who will be isolated from communities that can help them navigate their identities to minors on the autism spectrum who can express themselves better online than they can in face-to-face conversations.”
If platforms like Instagram are inherently damaging and directly comparable to gambling or cigarettes, comparisons frequently made by critics, being kicked off would be no great loss. But even research that suggests social media can be harmful for adolescents has associated moderate use with better well-being. Conversely, harmful online content like harassment and eating disorder communities still flourished before recommendation-driven, hyper-optimized modern social media; tinkering with specific algorithmic formulas could have a positive impact, but it’s possible it won’t provide a deep or lasting fix. The appeal of punishing Meta is obvious — what it will mean for everyone else is much less clear.
Facts Only
Two juries, one in New Mexico and one in Los Angeles, ruled against Meta and YouTube in separate cases involving harm to minors.
Meta was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages across both cases.
YouTube was also found liable in the Los Angeles case.
Both companies are appealing the verdicts.
The New Mexico case centered on allegations that Meta misled users about the safety of its platforms.
The Los Angeles case involved claims that Instagram and YouTube’s design contributed to social media addiction in a teenage user.
The legal strategy treated social media platforms as defective products to bypass Section 230 protections.
This is the first time a jury has ruled on personal injury claims related to social media addiction.
New York and California have passed laws banning "addictive" social media feeds for teens.
Meta recently discontinued end-to-end encryption on Instagram.
Legal experts note that judges in these cases have shown less leniency toward social media defendants than in the past.
Smaller social media platforms may face increased legal risks due to these rulings.
Executive Summary
Two recent jury verdicts in New Mexico and Los Angeles have held Meta and YouTube liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for harming minors, marking a significant legal shift in how social media platforms are treated under the law. The cases bypassed typical protections like Section 230 and the First Amendment by framing social media as defective products, a strategy that has rarely succeeded in court until now. In New Mexico, Meta was found liable for misleading users about platform safety, while in Los Angeles, plaintiffs argued that Instagram and YouTube’s design facilitated addiction, harming a teenage user. Both companies are appealing the decisions, and the outcomes could lead to larger settlements or broader industry changes.
The rulings reflect growing judicial and public skepticism toward social media’s role in adolescent well-being, with judges showing less deference to tech defendants than in the past. Legal experts highlight potential risks for smaller platforms, which may struggle with liability under vague harm standards, and warn that marginalized groups—such as LGBTQ+ teens or neurodivergent users—could lose vital online communities if restrictions tighten. While some advocates push for design changes like removing infinite scroll or addictive algorithms, others argue that overregulation could stifle free expression or fail to address deeper issues like online harassment, which predates modern recommendation systems. The long-term impact remains uncertain, balancing accountability for tech giants against unintended consequences for users and innovation.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that social media platforms, long shielded by legal protections, are finally being held accountable for tangible harms to vulnerable users. The jury verdicts represent a breakthrough in treating algorithmic design and corporate misrepresentations as actionable defects, not just abstract concerns. This aligns with a broader cultural reckoning over tech’s role in mental health, where platforms like Instagram and YouTube are increasingly framed as akin to gambling or tobacco—products that exploit psychological vulnerabilities for profit. The legal strategy of bypassing Section 230 by reframing platforms as defective products is innovative and, in these cases, effective. It’s a rare moment where the tort system has acknowledged systemic harms that regulation has struggled to address.
Yet the narrative also carries risks of emotional exploitation and distortion. The comparison of social media to cigarettes or gambling, while rhetorically powerful, may oversimplify the nuanced relationship between technology and well-being. Research suggests moderate social media use can benefit adolescents, and blanket restrictions could disproportionately harm marginalized groups who rely on these spaces for community and self-expression. There’s also a potential motte-and-bailey at play: critics demand accountability for "toxic" design features like infinite scroll, but the legal standard for harm remains vague, leaving room for overreach that could chill innovation or free expression. The focus on addiction as the primary harm may evade deeper systemic issues, such as the pre-existing prevalence of harmful content online, which algorithms amplify but did not create.
Rooted in this narrative is a paradigm shift: the assumption that tech platforms are not neutral intermediaries but active architects of user behavior, with a duty of care akin to product manufacturers. This echoes historical patterns of corporate liability, from tobacco litigation to automotive safety standards, where industries initially resisted regulation but eventually adapted. The unstated assumption is that legal pressure will force meaningful change, yet the track record of tech companies suggests they may opt for minimal, "cold, calculated" adjustments rather than fundamental reform. The cost of this shift may fall on smaller platforms, which lack resources to navigate liability risks, further consolidating power in the hands of a few giants.
For human agency, the implications are double-edged. On one hand, these rulings empower users and families to seek redress for harm, reinforcing the idea that corporations must answer for their design choices. On the other, they risk creating a chilling effect where platforms over-censor or exclude vulnerable users to avoid legal exposure. Second-order consequences could include the erosion of end-to-end encryption—a privacy tool—under the guise of child safety, as seen with Meta’s recent policy change. The beneficiaries of this narrative are likely plaintiffs’ attorneys, activists pushing for tech accountability, and perhaps users who gain safer platforms. The costs may be borne by marginalized communities, smaller competitors, and even free expression itself if platforms err on the side of restriction.
Bridge questions: If social media’s harms are systemic, can litigation targeting specific design features address the root causes, or is this a band-aid on a deeper wound? How do we balance accountability for tech giants with the need to protect spaces where vulnerable groups find support? What evidence would change your mind about whether these legal rulings will ultimately help or harm users?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign pushing this narrative might amplify moral panic around "addictive" tech, using emotional appeals about child safety to justify broad restrictions that benefit incumbent platforms by crushing competition. It could also exploit ambiguity in legal standards to pressure companies into self-censorship under the threat of lawsuits. However, the actual content here presents a nuanced debate, acknowledging trade-offs and unintended consequences, rather than a one-sided push for regulation. The analysis resists simplistic villainization of tech companies while still holding them accountable, suggesting a healthy, multi-perspective discussion rather than a manipulated narrative.
Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity (vague standards of harm), ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (narrow legal claims vs. broad cultural critiques)