Within hours, two U.S. courts have put the heart of the social networking model on trial. In Los Angeles, a jury ruled that Meta and Google had liability for psychological harm suffered by a young user, sentencing them to $3 million in damages. Almost simultaneously, in Santa Fe, another jury handed Meta a much heavier penalty: $375 million for failing to protect minors.
Two different decisions, but united by a common thread: the recognition that platforms are not simply neutral tools, but environments that can generate addiction and real mental health consequences.
The case of the 20-year-old girl and early addiction
At the center of the California ruling is the story of a 20-year-old girl who began using YouTube when she was 6 and Instagram when she was 11, developing an addiction described as “toxic” over time. The jury found that the platforms contributed to the development of anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, setting a first $3 million settlement, split between Meta for 70 percent and Google for 30 percent.
The case is considered a test case for more than two thousand similar lawsuits already filed in the United States related to the impact of social media on children.
Algorithms and content: the crux of accountability
The verdicts focus on one key point: the operation of the algorithms. According to findings in the trials, the platforms allegedly favored content capable of retaining users for as long as possible, even when this meant exposing younger users to inappropriate material or harmful dynamics.
In the New Mexico proceedings, investigators faked underage profiles, showing how it was possible to connect with sexualized content and dangerous users. The jury then recognized thousands of violations of consumer protection regulations, quantified at up to $5,000 each, hence the maxi compensation of $375 million.
Limited economic impact, but huge political impact
From a financial point of view, the figures do not put the web giants in trouble. Meta’s value exceeds $1.5 trillion and Mark Zuckerberg’s personal wealth is hundreds of times greater than the compensation imposed. But the real effect is systemic. If even some of the more than 2,000 pending lawsuits end in similar outcomes, the overall bill could grow rapidly, forcing companies to fundamentally alter their strategies.
It is no coincidence that many observers have recalled the precedent set by the tobacco industry. In the 1990s, a long series of lawsuits led to a $206 billion settlement and drastic restrictions on marketing to minors. Today, the parallel resurfaces because the mechanism seems similar: initially controversial allegations, internal documents surfacing in trials, and finally an acknowledged responsibility in court.
Toward new rules for social media?
The consequences could go beyond the courtroom. In the United States, initiatives to restrict the use of smartphones in schools and regulate minors’ access to the platforms are already multiplying.
The companies, meanwhile, dismiss the charges and announce appeals, arguing that there is no definitive scientific evidence of a direct link between social and mental disorders. But the rulings in Los Angeles and Santa Fe mark a point of no return. For the first time, a jury explicitly recognizes that platform design can contribute to addiction and real harm.
It is a paradigm shift that could redefine the relationship between technology, users, and responsibility. And which, as is often the case, will not be decided by innovation alone, but by the rules society chooses to give itself.
