Source: Opinion | The Social-Media Shakedown Begins Publisher: The Wall Street Journal | Author: The Editorial Board Published: March 25, 2026 | Archived: March 26, 2026

A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday held Meta Platforms and Google’s YouTube liable for a 20-year-old woman’s personal troubles. The schadenfreude will be overwhelming—nail the billionaires! But using a novel product liability theory to shake down companies won’t help young people and isn’t a good way to make law.

The $6 million verdict against the two companies is the first of more than 3,000 lawsuits pending in California courts that seek to hold social-media companies liable for the travails of young people. School districts and more than 40 state Attorneys General have also sued for damages to compensate for social problems allegedly caused by the platforms.

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects internet platforms from being held liable for harm caused by user-generated content. But plaintiffs are trying to dodge that law by arguing the platforms were negligent in how they designed their sites. They claim that features like so-called infinite scrolling and “like” buttons—not user posts per se—harm children. Whether this theory trumps Section 230 will be the main issue on appeal, and the platforms have a strong case.

Trial lawyers are also trying to copy the Big Tobacco playbook by arguing that company executives concealed knowledge that their sites are addictive and deleterious to kids. “This case is as easy as ABC,” lead trial attorney Mark Lanier told the jury. “Addicting, brains, children,” adding companies “didn’t just build apps, they built traps.”

The reality is that the link between youth mental health and social media is complicated. Take the 20-year-old plaintiff identified by the initials K.G.M. in the Wednesday case. She said she started using YouTube at age six and Instagram when she was nine. Both require users to be at least 13 years old, so she broke platform rules and bypassed controls.

She says her compulsive use of social media made her “feel very depressed” and that unrealistic images she saw on the platforms made her feel insecure about her appearance. But are platforms supposed to prohibit users from posting photos that might make someone feel depressed or insecure? Sorry, Californians, no posting beach photos in December.

She was also exposed to domestic abuse as a young child, which studies show can increase vulnerability to mental illness. Studies show that parenting plays a critical role in mediating and mitigating the impact of social media. Most children who use social media don’t experience severe problems.

There’s no doubt that increasing teen use of social media and smartphones over the last 15 years has coincided with rising levels of depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses. But it’s hard if not impossible to prove that social media caused any given individual’s troubles, let alone apportion liability among the platforms.

It’s also only recently that social scientists and policy makers have honed in on social media’s impact on youth mental health. The evidence presented at trial that executives purposefully designed the platforms to be addictive was weak. The trial lawyers’ best argument is that platforms should have done more to limit compulsive teen use.

But companies aren’t required to design products to prevent abuse or excessive consumption. A jury in New Mexico on Tuesday nonetheless found Meta liable in a separate case brought by the state AG for $375 million for failing to protect young people from online dangers. The temptation to find corporate scapegoats for social ills is great.

Congress for years has debated legislation to protect teens online, including stronger parental controls and privacy settings. But lawmakers have punted because, well, it’s easier to beat up Big Tech. Some Members also demand that any legislation include a right of private action that would let trial attorneys loot the companies.

<em></em>*

Which is what these lawsuits are really about. Trial lawyers will now use the L.A. verdict in advertisements to recruit more plaintiffs. They may even use the social-media platforms to advertise. Unemployed? Depressed? Spend your Friday nights scrolling? You could make big money by holding billionaires responsible for your problems.

Trial lawyers and juries may figure that Big Tech companies can afford to pay, but extorting companies is certain to have downstream consequences. Meta and Google are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on artificial intelligence this year, which could have positive social impacts such as accelerating treatments for cancer.

The social-media shakedown is a victory for the plaintiffs bar—not for children or society.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the March 26, 2026, print edition as ‘The Social-Media Shakedown Begins’.

The Editorial Board speaks for free markets and free people, the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” So over the past century and into the next, the Journal stands for free trade and sound money; against confiscatory taxation and the ukases of kings and other collectivists; and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities.