A recent trial between a 20 year-old woman from LA and Meta Platforms has concluded as an influential bellwether case, setting the precedent for a larger number of similar lawsuits. The plaintiff and her team argued that social media companies have designed their platforms with intentionally addictive features, utilizing similar mechanics to those present in gambling and cigarettes.
The trial reached its verdict on Mar. 25, 2026 with a $6 million award ($4.2M from Meta and $1.8M from Google) officially classifying social media design as defective products more than capable of causing mental harm. This case along with others has initiated a surge in new restrictive, protective policies and legislation, as well as started the conversation for additional policies that directly affect minors, such as chronological feed, digital curfews, mandatory break notifications, increased social media age restrictions, etc.
The core of the legal victory rests on the biological impact these platforms have on the adolescent brain. Both experts and students are beginning to view scrolling not just as a habit, but as a gripping chemical process.
“There are hormones and a (chemical) being released … dopamine, specifically … when you’re on social media for hours on end,” Bhuvan Datta, a junior at Granite Bay High School, said.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), explains that the adolescent brain is uniquely vulnerable to these rewards of instant gratification as compared to adults because they are still developing their sense of self-regulation and moderation.
According to the NIH, “The prefrontal cortex is one of the last parts (of the brain) to mature … responsible for skills like planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions.”
Additionally, new Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA) restrictions, if put in place, could result in the end of the algorithm for those under 17, as it aims to replace an engagement-based feed with one that is chronological, determined solely by your searches and people that you follow. Mr. Westberg, an AP Government teacher at Granite Bay High School, expresses a desire for change against the existing predatory techniques being used.
“If (in) the process (of using the app) for one thing but being taken advantage of for another, then … that should be regulated,” Westberg said.
Moreover, some are already going into effect next year. As of Jan. 1, 2027, it will be unlawful for a teenager to use social media during late hours, aiming to regulate sleep schedules. Specifically, California’s SB 976 bill will prohibit social media use from the hours of midnight to 6 a.m. During the school year from September through May, Monday through Friday, it would be further restricted to 8 a.m through 3 p.m. to reduce distractions from academics and promote mental hygiene throughout the entirety of the school week.
“I think that’d be beneficial … not because that’s when most people sleep, but (as) detox time,” Datta said.
Contrarily, Meta has rejected the claim that their app is clinically addictive and argues that it’s their First Amendment right to organize, collect and present content to the user. They maintain the stance that the app is simply a tool and that misuse comes from the consumer.
“The algorithm. It does a really good job of manipulating you and catering to your desires, but ultimately, it is your choice to doomscroll for hours on end … it is a matter of willpower,” Datta said.
However, legal experts point to a consent issue in current law. While the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) sets 13 as the age of digital consent, Westberg believes that a child at that age isn’t capable of resisting the addictive properties of the algorithm. He recognizes how these policies often prioritize access to technology rather than developmental science.
“A 13-year-old is not going to have the understanding of the algorithm part, that is for sure, but … if that’s what the law allows, okay,” Westberg said.
Consequently, this issue of digital maturity has contributed to recent talk at the state level of banning social media use for those under the age of 16, primarily using the argument that social media has caused documented harm. Dr. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor at NYU, agrees that teens should be at least 16 before being exposed to these types of content since he believes that social media inevitably leads to mental health issues and a worse overall lifestyle.
“You don’t want to give (your children) over to for-profit companies (whose) goal is to hook your child,” Dr. Haidt said as he addressed parents in his interview with The Guardian.
Ultimately, the goal of these landmark trials and new laws is to shift the power balance back to the individual rather than the company. A successful outcome isn’t necessarily a world without social media, but a world where people, no matter that age or circumstance, are able to demonstrate restraint and put down their devices willingly.
