States push social media firms over addictive feeds and youth harm

California and New York are pushing the most consequential legal challenge social media companies have faced in years: whether platforms can be held responsible for allegedly engineering addictive products that harm young users. The cases target the design of Instagram, Facebook and TikTok, not just the content people post there, and that distinction could determine how far courts are willing to go beyond the assumptions that have long protected digital platforms.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a bipartisan coalition of 33 attorneys general in filing a federal lawsuit against Meta in October 2023, alleging that features on Instagram and Facebook were designed to hook children and teenagers. New York Attorney General Letitia James later co-led a bipartisan coalition of 14 attorneys general in lawsuits against TikTok on October 8, 2024, pressing for financial penalties and changes to harmful product features. Together, the cases seek injunctive relief, monetary penalties and product redesigns, putting feeds, engagement tools and youth-targeting features squarely at issue.

The political fight has already spilled into state law. In September 2024, California signed the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, known as SB 976, which makes it unlawful to provide addictive feeds and certain features to minors without verifiable parental consent. New York and California officials have also pressed for wider policy changes, including warning labels on social media and limits on addictive feeds for minors, signaling that the courtroom battle is feeding a broader regulatory push.

The stakes became clearer in California’s courts in 2026, when a jury found Meta and Google liable in a teen mental-distress case and awarded $3 million. California officials also said in October 2024 that a court largely rejected Meta’s attempt to dismiss the coalition lawsuit, a sign that the claims may survive long enough to test how much liability can attach to platform design. If judges let those theories stand, social media firms could face new pressure to redesign recommendation systems, tighten child-safety settings and accept more direct legal exposure for the effects of their products.

The dispute is not confined to the United States. A Kenyan court ruled that Meta could be sued by a former content moderator who said reviewing graphic posts damaged his mental health, extending scrutiny from users to the workers who keep feeds running. Taken together, the cases ask a deeper question with national and international consequences: whether social media companies are neutral hosts, or products intentionally built to keep people scrolling. The answer could redefine the next era of platform liability.