social media

Social media companies face a legal reckoning this year as juries begin hearing the social media addiction lawsuits.

The long-awaited wave of cases will determine whether companies like Meta, YouTube, TikTok and their compatriots can face legal consequences for creating defective products.

The social media addiction lawsuits refer to thousands of civil cases alleging social media companies like Meta, YouTube and TikTok designed and released addictive products without adequate warnings, causing personal and financial injury.

The cases parallel the product liability lawsuits against tobacco companies, which eventually paid $206 billion for damage caused by addictive cigarettes.

The strongest cases are bundled into two groups — cases filed in federal court and cases filed in California state court. The federal cases primarily represent school districts and states which claim they foot the bill for young people’s social media addiction. The first of these cases will go to trial this summer.

The cases filed in California represent an estimated 1,600 individuals, families and school districts which claim social media addictions caused them personal injury.

The first of these cases — a 2023 suit filed on behalf of a young woman named KGM and several other plaintiffs — began trial proceedings on January 27.

KGM allegedly developed depression, anxiety and body-image issues after years of using YouTube, Instagram, TikTok (formerly Musical.ly) and Snapchat. She also became a victim of sextortion on Instagram, where a predator shared explicit photos of her as a minor.

The New York Post, which reviewed KGM’s complaint, describes her alleged experience with Meta following her victimization:

Predators met their victims on Instagram in nearly half (45%) of all the sextortion reports filed with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children between August 2020 and August 2023.

Of the scammers who threatened to share explicit photos of minors, 60% threatened to do so on Instagram.

When Instagram launched new tools to address sextortion in October 2024 — long after KGM’s experience — the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) warned:

KGM’s mom allegedly used third-party parental control apps to keep her daughter from using social media. It didn’t work. Per the complaint, Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap “design their products in a manner that enables children to evade parental consent.”

Social media “has changed the way [my daughter’s] brain works,” KGM’s mom wrote in a filing reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, continuing:

Snap, the company behind Snapchat, and TikTok settled with KGM in January. Meta and YouTube are expected to proceed with the trial.

KGM’s case is the first of nine California bellwether cases, or cases to determine whether a novel legal theory will hold up in court.

The mystery is whether KGM’s argument can circumvent Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which prevents online platforms from being sued for users’ posts.

Social media companies have thus far escaped product liability accusations using Section 230. In a November motion to keep KGM’s case from going before a jury, Meta blamed the harm KGM experience on content posted to Instagram, which it could not be held responsible for.

Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, who oversees the state cases, ruled against the social media juggernaut, finding KGM had presented evidence indicating Instagram itself — not content posted to Instagram — caused her distress.

“Meta certainly may argue to the jury that KGM’s injuries were caused by content she viewed,” Judge Kuhl wrote. “But Plaintiff has presented evidence that features of Instagram that draw the user into compulsive viewing of content were a substantial factor in causing her harm.”

“The cause of KGM’s harms is a disputed factual question that must be resolved by the jury,” she concluded.

If KGM or any other bellwether case wins, Section 230 may no longer offer unconditional protection for social media companies which behave badly.

The social media addiction cases could send social media companies an expensive message about prioritizing child wellbeing. But parents shouldn’t rely on companies’ altruism (or grudging compliance with court orders) to protect their kids.

Social media is not a safe place for children. Parents should seriously consider keeping their children off it.

To read more of the Daily Citizen’s reporting on the effects of social media on children, read the articles linked below.

Additional Articles and Resources

America Controls TikTok Now—But Is It Really Safe?

X’s ‘Grok’ Generates Pornographic Images of Real People on Demand

Australia Bans Kids Under 16 Years Old From Social Media

National Center on Sexual Exploitation Targets Law Allowing Tech Companies to Profit from Online Sex Abuse

TikTok Dangerous for Minors — Leaked Docs Show Company Refuses to Protect Kids

Instagram’s Sextortion Safety Measures — Too Little, Too Late?

Key Takeaways From Zuckerberg’s Tell-All

Zuckerberg Implicated in Meta’s Failures to Protect Children

Instagram Content Restrictions Don’t Work, Tests Show

Surgeon General Recommends Warning on Social Media Platforms

Horrifying Instagram Investigation Indicts Modern Parenting

Survey Finds Teens Use Social Media More Than Four Hours Per Day — Here’s What Parents Can Do

Child Safety Advocates Push Congress to Pass the Kids Online Safety Act

Many Parents Still Fail to Monitor Their Kids’ Online Activity, Survey Shows

Proposed ‘App Store Accountability’ Act Would Force Apps and App Stores to Uphold Basic Child Safety Protections

‘The Tech Exit’ Helps Families Ditch Addictive Tech — For Good

President Donald Trump, First Lady Sign ‘Take It Down’ Act

First Lady Supports Bill Targeting Deepfakes, Sextortion and Revenge Porn

Cultural flashpoints seem to be occurring with increasing frequency, undoubtedly facilitated and exacerbated by the explosion of social media. Situations and issues are quickly magnified and exploited — and more and more people seem to have opinions about all kinds of things that once upon a time would have been well off their radar.

Although arguable, social media’s overall downsides do have their upsides. Included on this small list would be the way the medium reveals an individual’s worldview, for good or bad.

It was Mark Twain who said, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” This philosophy is ignored by too many people out in cyberspace, many of whom weigh in on issues well beyond their expertise. They epitomize King Solomon’s stinging observation:

One man who is the antithesis of this is Dr. Del Tackett, a former senior vice president here at Focus on the Family and the creator and host of “The Truth Project” — Focus on the Family’s award-winning Christian worldview curriculum. Many of us here at Focus had the privilege of sitting under Del’s teaching before the lessons were put on film. 

At the heart of Dr. Tackett’s classes in this area is the conviction that Christians should be looking at every aspect of the world through the truth of Scripture.

“A worldview is a set of truth claims that purports to paint a picture of reality,” states Del. Biblical truth claims are unchanging and absolute while cultural claims more often vacillate with the changing times. In essence, our worldview is the lens through which we see reality.

One aspect of our worldview that seems to be overlooked involves how we tend to find what we’re looking for in this world. In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus declares, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you” (7:7). 

If we’re seeking the negative and the hypocritical, it’s a given that in a fallen world, we’ll find it — and even among Christians. Conversely, if we’re keeping our eyes open for the pure and the true, we’ll find that, too. 

It’s always been a curious thing when Christians seem to relish pointing out what they perceive to be pharisaical behavior among other believers. “Iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17), but it is a destructive practice to gleefully run down another Christian. Correction, if necessary, should be handled carefully and soberly.

Yet another concerning dimension of a certain worldview approach are those who assume the worst of people with whom they disagree. Christian couples often have the Apostle Paul’s words to believers in Corinth read at their wedding: “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7), but the sentiment is not just limited to romantic love.

Do we have a generosity of spirit when evaluating others? Simply because we don’t like someone’s politics or policies, must we nitpick and find fault? Henry Wadsworth Longfellow astutely observed, “We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done.” 

Scripture provides lots of evidence and encouragement for optimism (Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 15:13) and passages that will resonate with a more pessimistic posture (Psalms, Lamentations). Yet, ideally, a balanced worldview appreciates that both are realities to grapple with and work through on a daily basis. 

Dr. Tackett correctly suggested, “The battle we are in today is not primarily political or social — it is a battle of worldviews.” That struggle is not just existential but also very personal and requires us to examine our own hearts as we navigate the complexities of culture.