Social Media Under Fire

Kaley,* of Chico, California, began using social media at age 6. She turned to it as a place to be creative and also as an escape from bullying she faced at school. She spent hours a day on social media, particularly on Instagram, where she posted hundreds of selfies using beauty filters to mask her insecurities.

Now 20, Kaley has struggled with anxiety, depression, and thoughts of self-harm—and she believes social media is to blame. In 2023, she filed a lawsuit against YouTube, Meta (which owns Instagram and Facebook), TikTok, and Snap (which owns Snapchat), claiming that their design features are addictive and led to her mental health distress. She accused the social media companies of creating products as addictive as cigarettes or digital casinos.

TikTok and Snap both settled with Kaley for undisclosed terms before
the trial started. In March, a state court jury in California agreed with Kaley, ruling that Meta must pay $4.2 million in damages, while YouTube must pay $1.8 million. Meta and YouTube have vowed to appeal the decision.

The verdict in Kaley’s case—one of thousands of lawsuits over social media users’ well-being recently filed by teenagers, school districts, and state attorneys general—could prove to be historic. It’s the first time that U.S. courts have held social media companies directly accountable for harming teens. And the strategy Kaley’s lawyers used is likely to factor into similar cases going to trial this year, which could expose social media giants to massive financial damages and compel them to make changes to their products.

“There is a long road ahead, but this decision is quite significant,” says Clay Calvert, a media law expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a public policy research organization. “If there are a series of verdicts for plaintiffs, it will force the defendants to reconsider how they design social media platforms and how they deliver content to minors.”

At age 6, Kaley,* of Chico, California, began using social media. She turned to it as a place to be creative. It was also an escape from bullying she faced at school. She spent hours a day on social media, particularly on Instagram. She posted hundreds of selfies using beauty filters to mask her insecurities.

Now 20, Kaley has struggled with anxiety, depression, and thoughts of self-harm. She believes social media is to blame. In 2023, she filed a lawsuit against YouTube, Meta (which owns Instagram and Facebook), TikTok, and Snap (which owns Snapchat). The suit claims that their design features are addictive and led to her mental health distress. Kaley accused the social media companies of creating products as addictive as cigarettes or digital casinos.

Before the trial started, TikTok and Snap both settled with Kaley for undisclosed terms. And in March, a state court jury in California agreed with Kaley. The court ruled that Meta must pay $4.2 million in damages, while YouTube must pay $1.8 million. Meta and YouTube have promised to appeal the decision.

Thousands of lawsuits have recently been filed by teenagers, school districts, and state attorneys general over social media users’ well-being. Kaley’s verdict could prove to be historic. It’s the first time that U.S. courts have held social media companies directly accountable for harming teens. Future cases are likely to use the same strategy Kaley’s lawyers used, which could expose social media giants to massive financial damages. The cases could force them to make changes to their products.

“There is a long road ahead, but this decision is quite significant,” says Clay Calvert, a media law expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a public policy research organization. “If there are a series of verdicts for plaintiffs, it will force the defendants to reconsider how they design social media platforms and how they deliver content to minors.”

Legal experts have compared these new social media lawsuits to those against tobacco companies in the 1980s and 1990s. Cigarette manufacturers such as Philip Morris (now known as the Altria Group) and R.J. Reynolds were accused then of creating addictive products that harmed users and hiding information about the risks from consumers. The industry, often referred to as Big Tobacco, reached a $206 billion master settlement with more than 40 states in 1998 that led to an agreement to stop marketing to minors (see “Big Tobacco’s Downfall, below”). Strict tobacco regulations and a decline in smoking followed.

“Teens were the primary targets for those [cigarette] companies,” says Joseph VanZandt, one of Kaley’s lawyers. “When you’re a teen, your brain is still developing, and any addiction you form . . . is going to potentially stick with you for life.”

Legal experts have compared these new social media lawsuits to those against tobacco companies in the 1980s and 1990s. Cigarette manufacturers such as Philip Morris (now known as the Altria Group) and R.J. Reynolds were accused of creating addictive products that harmed users. They were also accused of hiding information about the risks from consumers. The industry, often referred to as Big Tobacco, reached a $206 billion master settlement with more than 40 states in 1998. The settlement included an agreement to stop marketing to minors (see “Big Tobacco’s Downfall, below”). Strict tobacco regulations and a decline in smoking followed.

“Teens were the primary targets for those [cigarette] companies,” says Joseph VanZandt, one of Kaley’s lawyers. “When you’re a teen, your brain is still developing, and any addiction you form . . . is going to potentially stick with you for life.”

Now social media companies are being accused of following a similar playbook. Critics say they’ve intentionally created addictive products and withheld information about the dangers to consumers.

In the past, social platforms have largely avoided legal consequences for any harms they might cause by citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects them from liability for what their users post. The law, enacted before Google or any social media platforms existed, permits internet companies to moderate their sites without being legally responsible for the material users share. Since the law’s adoption, the courts have repeatedly sided with internet companies.

This new batch of lawsuits, however, is relying on a novel legal theory that social media sites or apps can cause personal injury. They’re drawing inspiration from the legal arguments used against Big Tobacco.

Now social media companies are being accused of following a similar strategy. Critics say they’ve intentionally created addictive products and withheld information about the dangers to consumers.

In the past, social platforms have largely avoided legal consequences for any harms they might cause by citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The law protects them from liability for what their users post. However, the law was passed before Google or any social media platforms existed. It permits internet companies to moderate their sites without being legally responsible for the material users share. Since the law’s adoption, the courts have repeatedly sided with internet companies.

This new batch of lawsuits, however, is relying on a new legal theory that social media sites or apps can cause personal injury. The arguments are inspired by those used against Big Tobacco.

During opening arguments, Kaley’s lawyers presented the jury with internal company documents from Meta and YouTube that showed executives knew of and discussed the negative effects of their products on children. They also argued that features like infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations, and auto-play videos were designed to entice and hook young users to compulsively engage with the platforms.

Meta countered that Kaley’s mental health issues were caused by familial abuse and turmoil, not social media. YouTube argued that its features weren’t designed to be addictive and that it was simply a streaming site like Netflix, rather than a social media company.

But the jury found both companies liable, determining that Meta and YouTube were negligent in designing their platforms, and that their products harmed Kaley.

Google, YouTube’s parent company, and Meta say they disagree with the verdict.

“This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” says José Castañeda, a Google spokesperson.

During opening arguments, Kaley’s lawyers presented the jury with internal company documents from Meta and YouTube. The documents showed executives knew of and discussed the negative effects of their products on children. The lawyers also argued that features like infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations, and auto-play videos were designed to attract and hook young users to compulsively use the platforms.

Meta countered that Kaley’s mental health issues were caused by familial abuse and turmoil, not social media. YouTube argued that its features weren’t designed to be addictive. Lawyers claimed it is simply a streaming site like Netflix, rather than a social media company.

But the jury found both companies liable. They determined that Meta and YouTube were negligent in designing their platforms and that their products harmed Kaley.

Google, YouTube’s parent company, and Meta say they disagree with the verdict.

“This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” says José Castañeda, a Google spokesperson.

“We respectfully disagree with the verdict,” says Ashly Nikkole Davis, a Meta spokesperson. “Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.”

The $6 million in financial damages from the case are a drop in the bucket for Meta and Google, which bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue every year. But lawyers, parents, and consumer interest groups supporting plaintiffs in other suits hailed the jury’s decision as a step toward reducing the problems they believe social media is causing in young people.

Recent public health warnings have tied the mental health crisis among teenagers and young adults to social media usage. Headlines caution that mental health-related E.R. visits have surged and anxiety is skyrocketing. In the U.S., nearly half of teens say they’re online almost constantly, up from
24 percent a decade ago. And 23 percent of them say that using social media makes them feel worse about their lives, according to the Pew Research Center.

“We respectfully disagree with the verdict,” says Ashly Nikkole Davis, a Meta spokesperson. “Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.”

Meta and Google bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue every year. The $6 million in financial damages from the case are a drop in the bucket for them. But lawyers, parents, and consumer interest groups supporting plaintiffs in other suits see the jury’s decision as a step toward reducing the problems they believe social media is causing in young people.

Mental health-related E.R. visits have surged and anxiety is skyrocketing among teens and young adults. Recent public health warnings have tied this mental health crisis to social media usage. In the U.S., nearly half of teens say they’re online almost constantly. This is up from 24 percent 10 years ago. And 23 percent of them say that using social media makes them feel worse about their lives, according to the Pew Research Center.

Kaley’s case is among a surge of lawsuits filed by teens and their families against social media companies. Some estimates suggest there may be thousands of young plaintiffs with similar suits around the country.

More than 1,400 school districts have also filed lawsuits against social media platforms, accusing them of targeting students. Lawyers in some of these cases have presented internal documents that they say show how the companies targeted young people. Snapchat, for example, sent phone alerts to teens during school hours, urging them to share what was going on in their classrooms, according to a New York Times review of the documents. TikTok decided not to disable notifications during school hours, rejecting a suggestion from its safety teams. Google managers knew YouTube was recommending videos during the school day that had nothing to do with lessons. And Meta paid teen ambassadors to promote Instagram and hand out swag to their friends at school.

All four companies settled in May with Breathitt County Schools, a small district in rural Kentucky that served as a test case for school litigation nationwide. The companies agreed to pay Breathitt $27 million: $9 million from Meta, $8 million each from Snap and TikTok, and $2 million from Google.

Breathitt was the first of six so-called bellwether cases, whose outcomes are likely to guide the rest. The next plaintiff in line, Tucson Unified School District in Arizona, which has about 40,000 students, begins its trial next year and is seeking more than $1 billion.

Monique Bellamy, a Snap spokeswoman, says that the company was pleased to have resolved the Breathitt lawsuit amicably and that many of the documents showed the company was listening to feedback.

“We do not target schools,” she says, adding that Snapchat is simply popular among teenagers. “We care deeply about the safety and well-being of all Snapchatters, and our teams have worked for years to raise the bar on safety.”

TikTok declined to comment on the internal documents about app features that affected children in school. A spokeswoman says the app has dozens of privacy and safety settings, including parental controls.

Kaley’s case is among a surge of lawsuits filed by teens and their families against social media companies. Some estimates suggest there may be thousands of young plaintiffs with similar suits around the country.

More than 1,400 school districts have also filed lawsuits against social media platforms. They accuse the companies of targeting students. Snapchat, for example, sent phone alerts to teens during school hours, urging them to share what was going on in their classrooms, according to a New York Times review of court documents. TikTok rejected a suggestion from its safety teams to disable notifications during school hours. Google managers knew YouTube was recommending videos during the school day that had nothing to do with lessons. And Meta paid teen ambassadors to promote Instagram and hand out swag to their friends at school.

All four companies settled in May with Breathitt County Schools, a small district in rural Kentucky that served as a test case for school litigation nationwide. The companies agreed to pay Breathitt $27 million: $9 million from Meta, $8 million each from Snap and TikTok, and $2 million from Google.

Breathitt was the first of six so-called bellwether cases, whose outcomes are likely to guide the rest. The next plaintiff in line is Tucson Unified School District in Arizona, which has about 40,000 students. The trial begins next year, and the district is seeking more than $1 billion.

Monique Bellamy, a Snap spokeswoman, says that the company was pleased to have resolved the Breathitt lawsuit amicably and that many of the documents showed the company was listening to feedback.

“We do not target schools,” she says, adding that Snapchat is simply popular among teenagers. “We care deeply about the safety and well-being of all Snapchatters, and our teams have worked for years to raise the bar on safety.”

TikTok declined to comment on the internal documents about app features that affected children in school. A spokeswoman says the app has dozens of privacy and safety settings, including parental controls.

The increased pressure and public scrutiny on the platforms could start forcing some change. In June, Meta unveiled new safety features to curtail potentially harmful content shown to teenagers on Instagram, Facebook, and Messenger, its first major policy change since Kaley’s lawsuit. The features limit how frequently teenagers are shown posts about topics like nutrition, weight lifting, and anxiety in their feeds, Meta said, expanding on a broader teen safety effort it announced last October.

Congress has also been considering several bills to protect young people from social media, including one that would require mental health warning labels on social media platforms for minors and another that would force platforms to provide children with options to disable addictive features and opt out of algorithmic recommendations. But as of press time, none of the legislation had passed.

In the meantime, some states have tried to institute their own restrictions. California and New York, for example, have banned algorithmic feeds for users under 18. Several states, including Georgia, Louisiana, and Utah, have passed laws that require age verification for minors. And this summer, Nebraska began requiring parental permission for anyone under 18 to open a social media account.

The increased pressure and public scrutiny on the platforms could start forcing some change. In June, Meta unveiled new safety features to curtail potentially harmful content shown to teenagers on Instagram, Facebook, and Messenger. This is the first major policy change since Kaley’s lawsuit. The features limit how frequently teenagers are shown posts about topics like nutrition, weight lifting, and anxiety in their feeds, Meta said, expanding on a broader teen safety effort it announced last October.

Congress has also been considering several bills to protect young people from social media. In consideration is a requirement for mental health warning labels to be put on social media platforms for minors. Another would force platforms to provide children with options to disable addictive features and opt out of algorithmic recommendations. But as of press time, none of the legislation had passed.

In the meantime, some states have passed their own restrictions. California and New York, for example, have banned algorithmic feeds for users under 18. Several states, including Georgia, Louisiana, and Utah, have passed laws that require age verification for minors. And this summer, Nebraska began requiring parental permission for anyone under 18 to open a social media account.

Many of these laws, however, are facing legal challenges on the grounds that they violate users’ free speech rights under the First Amendment. Some experts have likewise raised concerns that the restrictions could prohibit teens from being able to express themselves online.

“If lots of people are benefiting from the internet and a few are not, we should be concerned that the people who are not benefiting are potentially going to change the environment for everybody,” says Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California.

No matter what happens with all the upcoming social media addiction trials, it’s likely that there will be at least some changes to platforms, Goldman says, now that governments are getting involved.

“The legislatures have already required social media companies to make significant . . . changes to their services,” he says. “Even if the [remaining] plaintiffs don’t succeed in court, the die has already been cast.”

Many of these laws are facing legal challenges. Opponents argue they violate users’ free speech rights under the First Amendment. Some experts have likewise raised concerns that the restrictions could prohibit teens from being able to express themselves online.

“If lots of people are benefiting from the internet and a few are not, we should be concerned that the people who are not benefiting are potentially going to change the environment for everybody,” says Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California.

No matter what happens with all the upcoming social media addiction trials, it’s likely that there will be at least some changes to platforms, Goldman says, now that governments are getting involved.

“The legislatures have already required social media companies to make significant . . . changes to their services,” he says. “Even if the [remaining] plaintiffs don’t succeed in court, the die has already been cast.”