A Jeremiah figure among millennial and Gen X parents for his warnings of impending social media doom and ruin, Haidt didn\u2019t mince words when forecasting the impact of the recent court cases.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe world is changing its thinking about this,\u201d Haidt said. \u201cThese verdicts coming when they do are going to shift it further.\u201d <\/p>\n
Many legal experts agreed. <\/p>\n
![\"plaintiffs,](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/1774740977_914_.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
Attorney Mark Lanier and his team arrive to the Los Angeles County Superior Court during the recent civil trial over his client\u2019s alleged social media addiction.<\/p>\n
(Kayla Bartkowski \/ Los Angeles Times)<\/p>\n
\u201cThe broader signal to the marketplace is that the shield is wearing thin,\u201d said Peter Jackson<\/a>, a privacy and cybersecurity attorney in Los Angeles. \u201cSeeing the richest and largest companies unable to fend off a litigation like this expands the scope of plaintiffs lawyers who will be willing to mount similar cases.\u201d<\/p>\n A powerful 1996 law called Section 230 has long barricaded internet platforms against most civil liability. The L.A. case tested the argument that injuries arose not from content the apps hosted but design functions engineered for maximum engagement \u2014 even if, as Kaley G.M. alleged, those designs were known to carry risks for children.<\/p>\n This week\u2019s wins could unleash a barrage of new lawsuits, even if the verdicts are overturned in the appellate courts, as the companies, their supporters, and many 1st Amendment experts expect. <\/p>\n The Delaware decision is different. Unless it\u2019s reversed, which isn\u2019t as widely predicted, the cost of defending those suits now falls entirely on Meta. <\/p>\n \u201cThis is going to fundamentally change engagement on social media,\u201d said insurance defense attorney Michael Coffey<\/a>. \u201cThe insurance industry is going to say, \u2018We\u2019re not paying for that.\u2019 You shouldn\u2019t make billions and try to put the bad product cost on the insurance companies.\u201d <\/p>\n Algorithms that funnel users to harmful content or keep them hooked on the platform could leave the apps exposed to expensive litigation, he and others said. Meta and Google each had multiple partners from white-shoe firms at the defense table every day for eight weeks in Los Angeles, attorneys who can command thousands of dollars per billable hour. <\/p>\n \u201cMaybe the numbers were manageable today, but the precedent is not,\u201d Coffey said of the judgment. \u201cIt\u2019s really going to change a lot of these algorithmic-driven business models.\u201d <\/p>\n The insurance law expert predicted more defensive default settings, stricter age verification, more stringent parental controls and new alerts to nudge users off the platforms will all flow from the courtroom. <\/p>\n Other observers warned of potentially cataclysmic consequences in court for Meta and other Silicon Valley giants.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you look at $3 million in damages, it\u2019s not that much to Meta or Google, but 2,000 or 3,000 cases at a time, that\u2019s an existential crisis,\u201d said Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. <\/p>\n The response from app designers could be swift and dramatic: Think universal TikTok-style censorship and aughts-era chronological scroll, experts said. <\/p>\n \u201cIt could just be that social media becomes totally useless,\u201d Cohn said. <\/p>\n Others see the sea change as less a legal tsunami than a tidal cultural shift \u2014 one jurors in New Mexico and California are riding, not speaking into existence. <\/p>\n Pluralities of young users now say they spend too much time on the apps. Roughly half of teens say social media is bad for people their age, according to a study last spring by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Parents are even more convinced, studies show. <\/p>\n Moms like state Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), author of California\u2019s crusading 2022 social media age restriction bill, agreed that society has hit a tipping point.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve got a 9-year-old and a 5-year-old, so I\u2019m living and breathing it, too,\u201d she said of the fight to keep kids off the apps. \u201cIt\u2019s the No. 1 thing that parents talk to me at pickup and drop-off and soccer practice. It\u2019s the thing.\u201d <\/p>\n Wicks said she worked with the companies on the 2022 bill, only to see them go to war to stop it once it passed. With age-verification tied up in court, she and other parent-legislators from both parties have joined forces to push through a suite of stronger laws this year.<\/p>\n Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, who was called to testify in both the L.A. and New Mexico trials, and his peers have long argued there\u2019s no workable mechanism to root out millions of existing underage users or keep new grade-schoolers from creating accounts. <\/p>\n Jurors found those claims unconvincing. <\/p>\n \u201cSome of his testimony was \u2014 he changed it back and forth,\u201d said Victoria, one of the 10 jurors who voted for liability in the case, who asked to be identified only by her first name for privacy reasons. \u201cThat didn\u2019t sit well with us.\u201d <\/p>\n On Friday, the nation\u2019s second-largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, announced<\/a> it had filed suit against Meta, TikTok, Snap and Google, as well as Discord, Roblox and X, citing reporting by The Times<\/a> about the stark rise in eating disorders<\/a>, depression and teen suicide<\/a> to support its claim that social media\u2019s child-addicting features and negligent design make it a public nuisance. <\/p>\n That suit joins hundreds of others already consolidated in federal court in California\u2019s Northern District. The first bellwether there is set to begin in Oakland this summer. <\/p>\n Where school districts go, school shooting survivors could soon follow. <\/p>\n