'A game-changing moment for social media' - what next for big tech after landmark addiction verdict?

 

Meta's boss Mark Zuckerberg appeared in court in February to defend the company, but it could now face further challenges over how it runs its platforms (Image: Getty Images)

A jury in LA has delivered a damning verdict for two of the world's most popular digital platforms, Instagram and YouTube. It ruled that those apps were deliberately designed to be addictive and that their owners had failed to protect the children who used them. It's a sombre moment for Silicon Valley and the implications are global.

 The tech giants in this case, Meta and Google, must now pay $6m (£4.5m) in damages to a young woman known as Kaley, the victim at the centre of this case. She claimed the platforms left her with body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts. Meta maintains that a single app cannot be solely responsible for a mental health crisis among teenagers, and both businesses intend to appeal. Google, meanwhile, says YouTube is not a social network. But for now the ruling means "the era of impunity is over" according to Dr Mary Franks, a law professor at George Washington University.

• READ MORE: How can you keep your child safe online?

It is hard to overstate what a game-changing moment this court verdict is for social media. Whatever happens next, and there will undoubtedly be appeals and further legal processes, this is going to redefine the landscape. It could even be the beginning of the end of the social media era as we know it.

A 'big tobacco' moment?

The world's doomscrollers might not have been shocked by the verdict but I think the tech companies were.

 Meta and Google racked up eye-watering legal fees defending this.  This case, and others like it, are clearly of huge significance to them.

 The other two companies in the trial – TikTok and Snap, the owner of Snapchat – settled before it went to court.  There were mutterings in the tech sphere they couldn't afford the fight.

 I had been invited to slick briefings about all the safety tools that social networks provide for parents.

But ultimately the court ruled their measures were not enough.

 Arturo Bejar, who used to work at Instagram, claims that he warned Mark Zuckerberg several years ago about the dangers it posed to children. "It changed from a product you used to a product that uses you," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Thursday.  Meta has refuted his assertions. Some experts have described the verdict as big tech's "big tobacco" moment, and we know how that worked out - although it didn't stop people smoking altogether.

 

Could there be health warnings on screens?  Restricted advertising and sponsorship opportunities?

 The tech companies are currently legally protected in the US by a clause known as Section 230, which shields them from liability for the content that is published on them.  Other types of media companies do not have this benefit.

 It is often said the tech industry couldn't survive without it.

 But scepticism over the shield may be growing, with Senate Commerce Committee having held a hearing to discuss it on Wednesday.

The leaders in technology have a generally cordial relationship with US President Donald Trump, who has defended the industry. He has not yet rushed to their aid.

The platforms may also be forced to eliminate all features intended to keep users on their platforms. But engagement is big tech's lifeblood.

 Lose all the techniques: the endless scrolling, the algorithmic recommendations, the auto play, and you're left with a very different, and arguably limited, social media experience.

 The success of big platforms lies in their footfall - keeping large numbers of people online for as long as possible and coming back as often as possible, in order that they might be targeted with as many ads as possible.  That's how the companies make money.

 In several territories, including the UK, children do not contribute to this advertising machine but only since regulators intervened. However, today's children are tomorrow's adults and the ideal scenario for the tech companies is that they turn 18 as established users already.

Meta's original social network, Facebook, is frequently referred to as the "boomer platform" in a joking manner; however, statistics for 2025 indicate that nearly half of its users worldwide are aged 18 to 35.

More challenges to come

Big Tech's second defeat in a number of similar cases scheduled for trial in the United States this year is Kaley's court victory. There are more to come.

 "This landmark verdict, along with many other similar lawsuits against social media companies, signals a shift in how courts view platform design as a set of choices that can carry real legal and social consequences," said Dr Rob Nicholls of the University of Sydney.

 "It paves the way for broader challenges against social media and other technology systems designed to maximize engagement at the expense of user wellbeing," And Australia, where Dr Nicholls lives, has already done exactly that.

 It removed under-16-year-olds from the largest social media platforms in December.

(Image Curtesy:  Getty Images)

The United Kingdom and other nations are considering the same thing, and this verdict unquestionably strengthens the case in favor of it. Banning the platforms from children is a no-brainer for some parents who have already struggled with it. Ellen Roome, a bereaved British mother, recently advised, "Just do it now." After her 14-year-old son Jools Sweeney's death in 2022, which she believes was caused by a botched online challenge, she has been advocating for changes to social media. Parliament, however, remains divided on what action to take.

 The House of Lords and the House of Commons are currently playing "ping pong" over a proposed change to the Children's Schools and Wellbeing Bill that would give ministers a year to choose which platforms to ban for people under 16 years old. It's possible that the new verdict will bring politicians and peers together—not just in the UK. Will we one day reflect on this time period and wonder why we ever allowed children to run amok on social media?

Source: BBC