By Emmie Meeks
Opinion Editor
For years, conversations regarding social media and children have been dominated by vague concerns and stalled reforms. Parents worried, lawmakers debated, and tech companies promised to “do better.” Now, the courts are cutting through the noise—and what they are finding should alarm every student, parent, and educator.
Recent jury verdicts against Meta and YouTube mark a turning point. According to NPR, a Los Angeles jury found that these platforms were deliberately designed to be addictive, contributing to the mental health struggles of a young woman, identified as KGM, who began using them as a child. The jury awarded her millions in damages, signaling that tech companies can no longer hide behind the idea that they are just neutral platforms.
At its core, this issue is about priorities. When corporate success depends on maximizing engagement, and engagement is achieved through features that encourage prolonged use, the interests of companies and the well-being of children can come into direct conflict. Without meaningful oversight, there is little incentive for companies to resolve that tension in favor of users.
In response, policymakers are beginning to act. In Maryland, lawmakers are advancing legislation that would restrict cellphone use in public schools, requiring students to limit access to devices during the school day. As reported by CBS News Baltimore, supporters argue that the measure is intended to reduce distractions and support healthier learning environments. The proposal reflects growing concern that constant connectivity is interfering not only with education, but with students’ overall well-being, according to CBS Baltimore.
KGM’s legal team presented internal documents to the jury from Meta in which, “CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other executives described the company’s efforts to attract and keep kids and teens on its platforms. One document said: ‘If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens,’” according to NPR. “Another internal memo showed that 11-year-olds were four times as likely to keep coming back to Instagram, compared with competing apps, despite the platform requiring users to be at least 13 years old.”
That same week, a New Mexico jury went even further. Jurors found that Meta violated consumer protection laws and harmed children’s mental health, agreeing with prosecutors that the company “prioritized profits over safety,” according to CBS. The verdict included hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and concluded that Meta engaged in “unconscionable” practices that took advantage of children’s vulnerability.
Critics of protection measures often frame them as excessive or restrictive. However, the evidence emerging from these cases challenges that perspective. When juries conclude that companies knowingly contributed to harm, and did so in pursuit of profit, the argument for stronger protections becomes difficult to dismiss.
Even more disturbing, evidence presented in the New Mexico case, including “a checklist of allegations from prosecutors that Meta failed to disclose what it knew about problems with enforcing its ban on users under 13, the prevalence of social media content about teen suicide, the role of Meta algorithms in prioritizing sensational or harmful content, and more,” according to CBS. The argument was not just that harm occurred, but that the company understood the risks and continued anyway.
According to The Guardian, the California verdict underscores the negligence argument, noting that the case exposed how platform features were designed to keep young users engaged for as long as possible. The result, according to the lawsuit, included serious consequences like body image issues and self-harm thoughts tied to prolonged social media use.
This pattern points to a deeper issue: the business model of social media platforms themselves. Social media platforms generate revenue by keeping users engaged for as long as possible. More time on the platform means more data, more ads, and more profit. When children become part of that equation, their attention is not just a byproduct, it becomes a commodity.
For decades, tech companies have largely avoided accountability thanks to legal protections such as Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which “generally precludes providers and users from being held liable—that is, legally responsible—for information provided by another person, but does not prevent them from being held legally responsible for information that they have developed or for activities unrelated to third-party content.” But as NPR reports, courts are increasingly willing to examine not just the content on platforms, but the way those platforms are designed.
Taken together, the evidence provided in court and states’ counter-legislation, suggest a turning point. Courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize how platforms are designed, rather than focusing solely on user behavior. Legislators are exploring ways to limit exposure and create boundaries, particularly in environments like schools where children should be protected.
Accountability is no longer optional. Social media companies are being forced to answer for the systems they have built and the consequences those systems produce.
Protecting children requires more than warnings or optional settings. It requires structural change, both in how platforms operate, and in how they are regulated. The question is no longer whether harm exists, but whether there is a willingness to address it.
Photo Caption: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is facing legal repercussions after Meta, along with fellow streaming platform YouTube , is on trial for negligence of child protection.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons