{"id":52489,"date":"2026-07-01T16:05:31","date_gmt":"2026-07-01T20:05:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=52489"},"modified":"2026-07-01T16:05:31","modified_gmt":"2026-07-01T20:05:31","slug":"meta-and-youtube-addiction-lawsuits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2026\/07\/01\/meta-and-youtube-addiction-lawsuits\/","title":{"rendered":"Meta and YouTube Addiction Lawsuits"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cecilia Kang, Ryan Mac, and Eli Tan<\/a> (March, Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

The social media company Meta and the video streaming service YouTube harmed a young user with design features that were addictive and led to her mental health distress, a jury found on Wednesday, a landmark decision that could open social media companies to more lawsuits over users’ well-being.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Citing features like infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations, K.G.M. sued Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, and Google’s YouTube, claiming they led to anxiety and depression.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Nick Heer<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

For its part, the Wall Street Journal<\/em> editorial board is standing up for beleaguered social media companies<\/a> in an editorial today criticizing everything about these verdicts, including this specific means of liability, which it calls a “dodge” around Section 230.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Product design, though, is a different question. It would be a mistake, I think, to read Section 230 as a blanket allowance for any way platforms wish to use or display users’ posts. (Update:<\/b> In part, that is because it is a free speech question.) From my entirely layman perspective, it has never struck me as entirely reasonable<\/a> that the recommendations systems of these platforms should have no duty or expectation of care.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Nick Heer<\/a>, on an April Massachusetts lawsuit:<\/p>\n

\n

To me, a non-lawyer, much of the actual text of the ruling<\/a> (PDF) explaining why this lawsuit was not immediately turfed on Section 230 grounds seems pretty reasonable. For example, the judge says “[u]nder the default settings, Meta enables approximately forty types of notifications” for the Instagram app, which the government alleges “is designed to overwhelm young users and compel them repeatedly to reopen Instagram”. We can argue whether this is a meaningful thing for a government to police or if it is just another example of Meta resorting to tacky growth-hacking techniques instead of trusting their product is sufficiently compelling on its own. (Most days when I open Instagram in my browser, it puts a red badge over the notifications tab and suggests I have one new follower<\/a>. I do not; I never have. It lies to me every time, presumably because it knows most people, including me, will usually click on that, thereby increasing a number on a dashboard somewhere.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Mike Masnick<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

couple weeks back, Jonathan Haidt published another entry in his ongoing campaign<\/a> to convince the world that social media is inherently ruining kids’ lives. This one was a victory lap titled “Seven Lines of Evidence Against Social Media,” treating recent developments — including the social media addiction verdicts against Meta that most people are misunderstanding<\/a> — as vindication of his thesis.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

But then something inconvenient happened for Haidt’s thesis: Pew went and did a brand new study exploring teens’ experiences on TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat<\/a>. This one asked the kids themselves.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Indeed, the research repeatedly suggests that for the very small number of kids who are facing mental health problems and overrelying on social media in response, the answer is a targeted intervention to help those individuals — not a broad “ban kids from social media” program.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n