Recent legal decisions involving Meta and Google have sparked debate about the responsibility of social media companies for the well-being of their users. The discussion gained momentum after two jury verdicts in March 2026.

Jury Verdicts and Initial Reactions

On March 24, 2026, New Mexico secured a $375 million jury verdict against Meta, alleging the company misled users and failed to adequately protect children from harm. The following day, a Los Angeles jury held both Meta and Google liable for harm to a young woman’s mental health.

Acknowledging a Conflict of Interest

Larry Magid, CEO of the internet safety organization ConnectSafely, acknowledges a potential conflict of interest. ConnectSafely receives support from both Google and Meta and has collaborated with them on child protection initiatives. He emphasizes that individuals within these companies genuinely care about child safety and actively work towards improving platform safety.

The Balancing Act: Safety, Profits, and Rights

Magid notes that while many within these companies prioritize safety, they also face pressures related to profitability and shareholder expectations. Beyond profit, balancing competing rights and interests presents a significant hurdle. Experts advising these companies often raise concerns about proposed safety measures that could have unintended consequences.

Impact of Social Media Usage

While not fully evaluating the specific rulings, Magid agrees that social media use can negatively impact children’s mental health and divert time from essential activities like exercise, in-person communication, schoolwork, and sleep. Every hour spent on social media is an hour not spent elsewhere.

Algorithmic Engagement and Design

Social media companies employ algorithms and design features – such as infinite scroll and autoplay – to maximize user engagement. These tactics, while not unique to social media, can contribute to excessive use and feelings of inadequacy through social comparison. The constant stream of curated content can lead to “compare and despair.”

Parallels to Other Industries

Magid draws parallels between social media engagement tactics and those used in other industries, like streaming services employing cliffhangers or food companies enhancing products for appeal. He points out that while different, these practices can also be harmful, leading to health problems from overconsumption.

Personalization and the First Amendment

A key difference lies in the personalization of digital products. Digital platforms can create highly customized experiences, unlike traditional advertising. This raises First Amendment concerns, as restricting speech on these platforms is a complex legal issue. A 2024 Supreme Court case affirmed that even curated content can be considered protected speech.

Protecting Children vs. Upholding Rights

While protecting children is paramount, the First Amendment applies to all ages, making decisions about regulating speech nuanced. Magid supports parental controls for young children but cautions against overly restricting teens’ access to social media, emphasizing their right to explore diverse topics and express themselves.

A Tipping Point and Future Considerations

Magid acknowledges a growing skepticism towards social media and suggests a potential “tipping point” in public opinion. He stresses the need to consider both the constitutional implications and the positive aspects of social media, such as fostering connections and providing access to information. The juries have delivered their verdicts, but the legal process is ongoing, with potential appeals and Supreme Court review.