For over ten years, child victims and their families have sought justice against the harmful effects of social media. Starting this week, they will finally be heard in court. The first trial against major social media companies began in Los Angeles on Tuesday. This case serves as a significant test for over 3,000 pending lawsuits filed against companies like Meta, TikTok, Snap, and YouTube, all of which are facing scrutiny over the toll their platforms take on young users.
The evidence emerging from this initial trial is alarming. An internal message exchange from a Meta employee starkly compares Instagram to drugs, clearly indicating a troubling awareness of the addictive nature of these platforms. One employee stated, “Oh my gosh y’all IG is a drug,” and another remarked, “We’re basically pushers.” Such candid admissions expose a darker side of social media, prompting questions about corporate responsibility.
This case is unprecedented. For the first time, juries will hear about the decisions made by these companies regarding minors and their product designs. Historically, lawsuits against social media have been dismissed due to Section 230, a law that shields internet platforms from liability for content hosted on their sites. However, the current wave of lawsuits challenges this notion. They argue not that harmful content caused the victims’ suffering, but rather that the design choices of the companies are fundamentally responsible.
These lawsuits shift focus from blaming parents or the victims themselves for excessive screen time to addressing how social media platforms are engineered to be addictive. Features such as infinite scroll, autoplay videos, and notification alerts create a feedback loop that keeps users engaged for longer than they should be. This design philosophy has created a situation where children are often left vulnerable to severe mental health issues.
The jury in this trial faces a crucial inquiry: Did these companies design their products in a way that neglectfully targeted children and knowingly caused them harm? This question mirrors concerns that emerged during the massive litigation against tobacco companies in the late 1990s and against opioid manufacturers more recently.
Critics of the lawsuits argue they might complicate victims’ ability to prove their harms stemmed directly from social media use. They suggest individual experiences vary too widely for causal links to be established. However, similar arguments were made against those seeking accountability from Big Tobacco and opioid producers. In the end, these cases led to multi-billion-dollar settlements, providing relief to countless harmed individuals.
Newly unsealed documents reveal that companies like Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive. Evidence includes employee communications, internal presentations, and research studies. One Meta report shockingly expressed, “the lifetime value of a 13 y/o teen is roughly $270 per teen,” highlighting how corporations have quantified young users in an effort to maximize profits. Another internal study pointed out that “Teens can’t switch off from Instagram even if they want to,” which exemplifies just how deeply intertwined these platforms have become in users’ lives.
Faced with stark evidence of harm, some companies, such as Snap and TikTok, settled before the trial began. These settlements suggest a fear of exposing internal practices that corner these platforms into admitting neglect regarding user safety. They seemingly preferred to avoid the public scrutiny that might arise from this trial, where damning evidence could be fully exposed.
Parents are stepping up to fill the gap left by a stagnant Congress that has not passed a child online safety law since 1998. In contrast, countries like Australia have recently established a ban on social media usage for minors under 16. As other nations push for stronger regulatory measures, U.S. families are leading the charge to hold social media companies accountable through the judicial system.
This trial marks a pivotal moment for accountability in Big Tech. The outcomes will not only affect the plaintiffs involved; they have the potential to reshape the landscape of social media regulation in the United States. As the case unfolds, it will reveal whether the courts will recognize the responsibility these companies bear for the well-being of their young users.
"*" indicates required fields
