Half-baked evidence is fueling an unprecedented wave of lawsuits against social media companies. Recent attention has primarily focused on Colorado, California, Kentucky, and New Jersey─all of which have recently filed lawsuits against Meta that could cost $1.4 trillion in penalties, nearly as much as the company’s entire market capitalization. The tip of the iceberg is that there are more than 2,400 other pending lawsuits.
Although only one major jury verdict in California has accepted social media addiction as a basis for liability, lawmakers are already treating that decision as evidence that broad regulation is necessary. When policymakers rely on courtroom outcomes rather than the body of scientific research, isolated verdicts risk becoming de facto policy standards for an entire industry. That approach is unlikely to meaningfully address adolescent mental health because it substitutes legal judgments for scientific consensus.
This past March, out of several lawsuits against social media companies, one was chosen to go to the Los Angeles Superior Court. After 9 days of deliberation, the jury concluded that Instagram and YouTube were liable for having design features that were addictive and harmed users. But beyond whatever conclusion 12 people on the jury and 2 sets of paid experts may have reached, overarching policy decisions should rest on strong evidence of harm.
The difficulty begins with the causal theory underlying many of the legal claims. As recent research from the American Consumer Institute shows, the available evidence remains nuanced and weak, at best, and has not established either social media use or addictive design as a major causal explanation for poor mental health among teenagers. For instance, a Pew Research Center survey shows that most teens report little effect on self-esteem when using social media, while research from Harvard links routine social media use with some positive measures of well-being. None of these prove social media is beneficial or harmless. Rather, it illustrates that teens’ experiences are different and that current evidence does not support treating social media addiction as a broadly established scientific fact.
However, the influence of these lawsuits extends beyond the courtroom. Their central theory, that social media companies deliberately employ addictive platform designs, has increasingly shaped how lawmakers discuss online safety. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) stated after the bellwether case in California that “[the jury verdict] is powerful proof that the Kids Online Safety Act [KOSA]… is urgently needed.” Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) praised the jury verdict and called for Congress to “act now.” The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee convened a hearing titled “From the Courtroom to Congress: Why Landmark Social Media Verdicts Demand Federal Action to Protect Kids Online.” During the several hearings, legislators described “addictive platform designs” as one of the principal justifications for passing the bundle of bills encompassed in the KIDS Act.
Advocates of social media regulation are quick to note the verdict that California juries found as evidence of harmful use—but those instances, so far, have been applied directly to only two platforms. Other cases have been dropped entirely, and if lawsuits are being used as evidence of harm, those cases being dropped should also be considered.
To add nuance to the issue, the harm-benefit calculation varies on a case-by-case basis. The legislation it motivates, however, is blunt and applies to everyone. Outright bans, duty of care requirements, age verification, and default safety mandates—at the state or federal level—apply to every user on virtually every online platform.
Meanwhile, the flood of lawsuits operates as policy by another name—without the same accountability. Politicians must answer to their constituents; courtrooms often do not. With financial penalties reaching into the trillions, lawsuit pressure and the threat of liability can shape industry patterns more than the broader academic evidence.
Until and unless stronger evidence demonstrates a clear link between social media and mental health problems for users, policymakers and courtrooms should rely on the evidence as it exists today. These rules and decisions affect all of us.
Pablo Garcia Quint is a technology policy analyst with the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. Follow Pablo on X @gq_pablo