A new article by Market Institute Senior Fellow Norm Singleton in RealClearMarkets examines a troubling California jury verdict holding Meta and Alphabet liable for alleged harms tied to social media “addiction”—and warns of the broader consequences for innovation, free expression, and the future of the internet.
A California jury recently found Meta and Alphabet liable for up to $6 million in damages tied to a young woman’s alleged social media addiction. But as Singleton explains, the legal theory behind the case could have far-reaching consequences:
“If the jury’s verdict survives the inevitable appeals, it will open the floodgates to more lawsuits… The result will be a social media universe in which startup companies will find it difficult to attract capital—while existing tech companies increasingly restrict who can use their platforms and what they can post.”
At the heart of the case is an attempt to bypass Section 230 protections by arguing that harm comes from platform design—not content. Singleton makes clear why that distinction doesn’t hold up:
“K.G.M. stated that she ‘has gotten a lot of content promoting body checking… making people feel bad if they don’t eat like that.’ Thus, she admits her problems were caused by content—which means Section 230 applies.”
This framing, if accepted broadly, would fundamentally reshape how the internet operates. Singleton points out that platform features alone don’t create harm without user engagement:
“Endless scroll and auto play have no power to keep people staring at their screens unless the users are captivated by the content.”
He also highlights the slippery slope this logic creates, noting that many industries encourage consumer behavior without facing liability:
“Clothing retailers regularly text or email customers with recommendations… Although shopaholics can struggle with credit card debt, no one is suing Macy’s for a failure to warn its customers of the dangers of excessive shopping.”
Beyond the legal implications, Singleton challenges the common narrative about social media replacing real-world interaction:
“Children with smartphones are more likely to use FaceTime—thus interacting more with their friends than children without smartphones.”
While acknowledging that excessive use can create real issues, Singleton argues that litigation is the wrong tool to address them:
“The solution to problems caused by excessive social media use is not litigation and/or legislation.”
Instead, responsibility lies closer to home:
“Parents must use the many tools available to help them protect their children… [including] strict rules setting limits on screen time.”
Ultimately, Singleton warns that cases like this risk doing more harm than good:
“Solving them through litigation will drain resources away from one of the most innovative sectors of the U.S. economy… harming workers in the tech industry and the vast majority of social media users who know how to responsibly use the internet.”
The stakes are clear: efforts to hold platforms liable for user behavior may not make the internet safer—but they could make it smaller, more restrictive, and far less innovative.
Read more at RealClearMarkets by clicking here.
