The experience began innocuously enough. A simple intent to check a calendar quickly devolved into an endless cycle of digital distraction. A chat notification from a friend led to a meme, which in turn unlocked a curated stream of short videos. These algorithmically selected clips, ranging from the arcane (ravens at the Tower of London) to the culinary (Indonesian street food), held a hypnotic pull. The raven video, and then another, prompted further engagement. The practice of scrolling through these “reels” continued, seemingly without end, for nearly 45 minutes.
The consequence of this digital detour was a pervasive sense of depression and fatigue. The question arose: where had that time vanished? How could a platform like Instagram consume nearly an hour of attention, delivering hundreds of videos and dozens of advertisements, when the initial goal was merely a glance at a schedule? Furthermore, why did this immersion leave one feeling so unwell?
These are the very questions now being actively debated and are set to be addressed in two significant California court cases. Thousands of individuals and groups have filed lawsuits against major social media corporations, including Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram), Google (owner of YouTube), Snap (owner of Snapchat), ByteDance (owner of TikTok), and Discord. The plaintiffs, a diverse group encompassing school districts and concerned parents, assert that social media platforms pose a substantial risk to children. They argue these platforms contribute to severe psychological distress and, in some tragic instances, have even been linked to fatalities.
The core of these legal challenges lies in the exposure of children to a deluge of problematic content. This includes videos depicting violence, promoting unattainable beauty standards, and featuring “contests” that encourage dangerous stunts. Such material, the lawsuits contend, leads young users down dangerous paths from which recovery may be exceptionally difficult. The fundamental question at the heart of both cases is whether these companies bear responsibility for the negative emotional and psychological impact their platforms have on users.
Changing Legal Landscape
For more than a decade, the prevailing sentiment among many US lawmakers has suggested that these companies were not at fault. Instead of enacting regulations directly targeting the companies, numerous US states have passed legislation focusing on how children interact with social applications. Some of these laws aim to restrict access by mandating parental consent for minors to create accounts. Others have attempted to mitigate adolescent cyberbullying by removing “like” counts from posts.
A significant portion of these legislative efforts has concentrated on the perceived dangers inherent in social media content. However, within the United States, this approach effectively shields the companies from liability. A notable provision within the Communications Decency Act, known as Section 230, generally protects companies from being held accountable for content posted by their users.
The rationale behind Section 230, established in the 1990s, is understandable. At that time, concerns about issues like prolonged doomscrolling, algorithmic manipulation, or the influence of toxic “looksmaxxer” personalities—who might advocate for extreme or harmful actions to achieve perceived aesthetic ideals—were not prevalent. Furthermore, Section 230 was considered a practical necessity. With services like YouTube seeing an estimated 20 million video uploads daily, holding companies liable for every instance of unlawful content would be an insurmountable operational challenge.
Free Speech and Platform Design
A crucial, underlying factor influencing this legislative environment is the United States’ staunch commitment to free speech principles. This stance makes it comparatively easier for companies like Meta and Google to challenge laws that might restrict online access to information or expression, even when that expression involves content such as dieting advice that promotes starvation. Consequently, many laws designed to limit minors’ access to social media have been overturned by judges who interpret them as being in opposition to free speech rights. This has allowed many social media companies in the US to effectively use free speech arguments as a defense against regulatory measures.
A New Legal Strategy
The current landscape, however, may be shifting. The two ongoing cases in California represent a fascinating strategic departure. They deliberately sidestep discussions about specific content or free speech issues. Instead, these lawsuits posit that the very design of social media platforms is “defective” and, as a consequence, inherently harmful. Features such as the endless scroll, persistent notifications, auto-playing videos, and the algorithmic mechanisms that foster user fixation are argued to be deliberate creations by the companies themselves.
The plaintiffs contend that these “defects” transform social media applications into “addictive” products, drawing parallels to “slot machines.” They argue that these platforms are “exploiting young people” by providing an “artificial intelligence driven endless feed to keep users scrolling.” Ultimately, the objective of these legal actions is to compel social media companies to accept accountability for the detrimental effects their products have on their most susceptible consumers.
Echoes of Past Litigation
In many respects, this argument echoes the legal battles waged by the US government against tobacco companies in the 1990s. In those cases, the government successfully argued that the companies were aware of the harmful nature of their products but actively concealed this information. The outcome of those lawsuits led to significant settlements paid to victims, the mandated inclusion of warning labels on tobacco products, and a revision of marketing strategies to no longer target children.
Evidence suggesting that Meta was aware of its product’s addictive qualities has already emerged through leaked documents. In one instance, a federal judge unsealed court documents related to a case involving a teenage girl who experienced suicidal ideation after becoming addicted to social media. These documents reportedly included internal communications from Instagram, where a user experience specialist allegedly stated: “oh my gosh yall [Instagram] is a drug… We’re basically pushers.” This document, among others originating from Instagram and YouTube, is presented by the lawyers as indicative of companies knowingly and negligently producing defective products.
Potential for Transformation
The two trials currently in progress possess the potential to dramatically reshape the social media industry. It is possible that US law may finally acknowledge a reality long understood by many: the issue is not solely the content itself, but the deliberate actions of the companies that curate and deliver it to users.