By Larry Magid
This post first appeared in the Mercury News.
On March 24, 2026, a jury awarded the State of New Mexico $375 million in its case against Meta over allegations that the company misled users and failed to adequately protect children from harm. The next day, a Los Angeles jury found Meta (Instagram) and Google (YouTube) liable for harm to a young woman’s mental health, tied to her use of the platforms, beginning when she was a child. Both Meta and Google plan to appeal.
I have mixed feelings about these verdicts, which I’ll get to shortly. First, I need to acknowledge my own conflict of interest. Google and Meta are among the companies that help support ConnectSafely, the non-profit internet safety organization where I serve as CEO. Over the years, we have worked very closely with staff assigned to child protection, serving on a variety of safety advisory councils and providing feedback on current and proposed projects. We have produced parent guides, videos and other content designed to provide safety information for users and caregivers.
Almost everyone I’ve worked with in these trust and safety roles cares deeply about child safety and works hard to recommend ways to make their platforms as safe as possible. But they face headwinds, including CEOs and other senior executives who are focused on generating profits and keeping shareholders happy.
But it’s not just about profit. There are also other factors at play, including the need to balance competing rights and interests. Experts from various advocacy and safety groups who advise these companies sometimes express concerns about proposed safety measures that might have unintended consequences.
Potential harms
I didn’t attend the trials, and I don’t have enough information to fully evaluate these specific jury rulings, but I agree with the general conclusion that children can be harmed as a result of their use of social media. Spending too much time on social media can impact their mental health and distract from other things, including exercise, in-person communications, schoolwork and other activities. We have only 24 hours in a day. Every hour spent on social media is an hour not spent on something else, including essential sleep.
It’s also clear that companies put a lot of effort into encouraging people to stay on their services through algorithms that deliver what the company considers to be compelling content. There is also “infinitive scroll,” content that displays continuously with no natural stopping point, making it easy to keep going without thinking about time, and autoplay, such as videos that play one after another, making it tempting for people of any age to keep watching longer than they may have intended. Likes, comments and reposts can create pressure to keep posting more content, and there is no shortage of problematic user-generated material online, including posts from people who appear more attractive, happier, richer or more successful, which can lead to “compare and despair.”
Other industries use tactics to keep you coming back
I think there are ways to tweak these algorithms to do less harm, and I’m not going to defend these practices. However, it’s worth noting that they are used in other industries. Many shows on Netflix and other streaming platforms end with a cliffhanger, making it almost compelling to watch the next episode, leading to what’s commonly known as “binge watching,” a habit that frequently causes my wife and me to get to bed much later than planned. And algorithms that deliver content known to be appealing to the viewer exist across virtually all digital media, including recommendation engines that steer you to videos, books, articles and other content that platforms believe you might like.
Even products you can buy at a store or a restaurant are designed to entice us and keep us coming back. Ice-cream makers load their products with rich cream and sugar, making them hard to resist. Candy companies fine-tune both ingredients and packaging to maximize appeal. And fast-food chains hire talented cooks and photographers to present their offerings in ways that make you want to scarf them down.
And while these products are different from social media, they can also be harmful. Both children and adults who consume too much ice cream, candy or fast food can become obese and develop serious health problems. And for some people, because of medical conditions or allergies, even small amounts of certain foods can make them very sick. In August 2021 to August 2023, an estimated 21.1% of U.S. children and adolescents ages 2–19 years had obesity issues, including 7.0% with severe obesity and another 15.1% who were overweight, according to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics.
Digital products can be personalized
One key difference between physical and digital products is that the techniques used to make digital products appealing can be highly personalized. Advertisers have always tried to place messages in media that attract their target audiences, but they generally don’t know exactly who is watching or reading, nor can they tailor each message to an individual. Digital platforms can create highly customized experiences for each user. My social media feed is different from other people’s and very different from that of most teens. For example, I rarely see hate speech or misogyny on my Facebook feed, but I’ve heard from members of ConnectSafely’s Youth Advisory Council who say they frequently encounter toxic content.
But there is another important difference between physical products and social media. As New York Times opinion columnist David French recently wrote, “A social media site isn’t a bottle of alcohol or a cigarette. It’s not delivering a drug. It’s delivering speech. Sometimes that speech is silly and harmless. Sometimes it is toxic and harmful. Sometimes it’s educational or inspiring. But it’s all speech, and in America speech traditionally can be blocked, censored or regulated only in the narrowest of circumstances.” French’s column argued that “Even the algorithm is a form of constitutionally protected speech,” pointing to a 2024 Supreme Court case, Moody v. NetChoice, where Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority that “expressive activity includes presenting a curated compilation of speech originally created by others.”
First Amendment applies to everyone
Although both the Los Angeles and New Mexico cases involved protecting children, it’s important to point out that the First Amendment applies to everyone, regardless of age, and that makes decisions regarding speech more nuanced than the protections and restrictions we typically apply to minors, such as prohibiting their use of alcohol and tobacco or requiring them to wear bicycle helmets.
I would never argue that all legal speech is appropriate for children, and I do support parents’ right to filter and monitor internet content for young children. But I think we must be very careful about limiting teens, especially older teens, in their ability to consume or create content or ban them entirely from accessing social media. There are, of course, lines that shouldn’t be crossed, but we must approach these decisions thoughtfully, with due regard for teens’ rights to explore topics that adults might consider controversial, including sexual orientation, politics, and religion.
Protect & Respect
I understand why many people are cheering for those recent verdicts, and I do think we may have reached a tipping point where many adults, and even some teens, are seriously questioning whether social media is doing more harm than good. But I also think we need to consider both the constitutional issues and the positive uses of social media, including giving young people ways to stay in touch with friends and family, build communities around shared interests, explore new ideas, cultures, and perspectives, and seek support from people and groups they might not otherwise have access to.
Of course, we must protect children, but we must also respect them and safeguard their rights, including their right to free expression. The juries have spoken, but they don’t get the last word. I’ll be interested to see what the appeals courts and, perhaps, ultimately the Supreme Court, will decide on these complex matters.
Disclosure: Larry Magid is CEO of ConnectSafely.org, a nonprofit internet safety organization that receives financial support from both Google and Facebook.