A court hearing that could change social media as we know has begun in California, with opening statements now underway in a landmark trial which alleges that social media companies have designed intentionally addictive systems, and have ignored risks, especially to children, in order to maximize their business opportunities.

The case stems from previous testimony submitted as part of a multidistrict litigation against several social media platforms over their efforts to drive growth. Back in 2023, a separate case in the Northern District of California alleged that Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube had “relentlessly pursued a strategy of growth at all costs, recklessly ignoring the impact of their products on children’s mental and physical health.”  

Among the various insights revealed within this was that, based on testimony from former employees, Meta has aggressively pursued young users, even though its internal research indicated that social media could be addictive and dangerous to kids. The former staff claimed that concerns had repeatedly been raised internally on this front, as far back as 2017, and solutions had even been submitted to improve its systems, but Meta largely ignored these early on, due to concerns that implementing such could impede growth.

Meta did eventually implement more stringent privacy protections for all teen accounts in 2024, but now, the company will go on trial, along with other social apps, to answer questions about its approach to teen safety, and whether it prioritizes such versus growth.

And that could have major implications for policy relating to social platforms, and how they’re shielded from litigation over what users see in their apps. Under Section 230 laws, social platforms cannot be held liable for what people share, but if Meta is found to have knowingly encouraged, and even amplified harmful content, despite being aware of the risks, that could change its protections in this respect.  

At the same time, in New Mexico, another trial is underway which alleges that Meta failed to disclose what it knows about the harmful effects of its platforms on children, in violation of that state’s consumer protection laws, while various regulators and lawmakers in other nations are also assessing the safety of Meta’s apps for teens, as they consider their own potential restrictions on social media access.

In combination, this could lead to new penalties, and new restrictions for social apps, which would have a major impact on social platform usage, and the ubiquity of social apps as connective tools.

Though the platforms themselves have warned that banning teens is flawed, in that restrictions will never be fully effective, while limiting certain platforms won’t get kids to stop engaging online, but instead, it will just push them towards more risky, less monitored online spaces.

That’s key to Meta’s argument in the main case here, that it has actually implemented various measures to protect young teens, and has responded to all research findings accordingly.

Though clearly Meta is concerned. It’s launched a TV ad campaign in the U.S. to highlight its safety work with teens, while it’s also unleashed its PR attack dogs on critics to refute claims.  

Meta, along with several other social apps, has also agreed to take part in an independent assessment of how effectively it protects the mental health of teenage users, as a show of good faith in its systems.

So Meta is working to counter the potential brand damage. Though even if Meta can defend these specific cases, the insights revealed could still be damaging, and could accelerate the push for more restrictions, harming its business.

Australia has already implemented restrictions on teen usage, and several other nations are now leaning in that direction, including Spain, Denmark, France, Portugal, the U.K. and others. That’s aside from the potential changes to legal protections, and any penalties that could arise if Meta is prosecuted for putting youngsters at risk.

And with Meta also being a soft target for politicians, you can bet that criticism of the company is only going to get louder, as opportunistic candidates look to win votes.

Overall, this could be a game-changing period for social apps, and could have a major impact on public policy relating to them moving forward.