!Teens and children addicted to social media

Several wildly popular social media platforms—including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook—intentionally target young users with addictive features, according to recent injury lawsuits. These suits claim that these features have played a big part in a nationwide youth mental health crisis.

(Editor's note: In March 2026, a California jury found Meta and YouTube liable in the first social media addiction-based personal injury lawsuit to go to trial.)

Read on for an in-depth understanding of social media addiction lawsuits filed by individuals, and state governments' attempts to hold social media companies accountable for harm suffered by young users.

In This Article

What Are the Social Media Addiction Lawsuits About?

Individuals and their families have filed thousands of social media addiction-related personal injury cases in recent years, looking to hold the companies behind Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, and other sites responsible for addicting and harming kids and teens.

Many of these lawsuits flag the same social media features as being problematic:

  • recommendation algorithms that manipulate young users' dopamine releases, causing them to use the products over and over again "like a gambler at a slot machine"
  • "likes," social comparison features, and "infinite scroll," all of which are aimed at enabling addictive behavior
  • notifications and alerts that bring young users back to these social media platforms during school hours and overnight, actively cultivating "fear of missing out" (or "FOMO"), and
  • photo filters that can cause body dysmorphia disorder and other mental health conditions.

Are Social Media Platforms and Algorithms "Dangerous Products"?

Some of the social media addiction lawsuits being brought by individuals (and those that have been consolidated in federal and state court) rely at least in part on the legal theory of "product liability," which is often used to hold companies responsible when an unreasonably dangerous or defective product causes injury.

The theory in these cases is that the defective "product" isn't the content on these platforms—but the platforms themselves and the way they're designed, including the algorithms that feed content to users and get them to keep scrolling, tapping, and engaging.

How Do I Prove Social Media Addiction?

This is one of several key legal hurdles in these lawsuits.

It's one thing to investigate a corporation, get hold of its internal communications, and establish that it knew its product was almost certainly harming lots of its users. It's also not much of a stretch to intuitively conclude that teenagers' near-constant use of social media is likely to have negative effects on their mental health and well-being. But bringing a successful personal injury lawsuit (or product liability case) requires clear proof that that corporation's product was an actual (and substantial) cause of the plaintiff's specific claimed harm.

So, the challenge is proving that a specific young person's development of a mental health disorder or other diagnosable injury was a direct result of their use of social media. And that's on top of showing that the company knew (or should've known) that its product (or more specifically, its algorithm) was harmful. (Learn more about proving a product liability claim.)

The platform-as-product argument is also being made in several recent lawsuits seeking to hold AI companies liable for user suicides, and in lawsuits over the safety of Roblox.

Will "Section 230" Block Social Media Addiction Lawsuits?

It's possible, but so far, tech companies' use of this defense has seen only limited success when it comes to claims of intentionally targeting and addicting young users.

Companies like Meta are mostly protected from liability when it comes to content that's posted on their platforms by third parties. This protection comes from a federal rule known as “Section 230” (which is where it's listed as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996). So, for example, if harmful content is published on a company's platform (like a social media post that's defamatory), the person who posted the material can be sued for harm, but the platform itself can't usually be held liable.

Tech companies can also use Section 230 to avoid most liability for regulating content that violates the law, or that goes against platform guidelines, as long as those restrictions and decisions are made in "good faith."

But while Meta, Google, and other tech companies have argued that these social media addiction cases should be dismissed based on Section 230 and the First Amendment, several judges in key cases have (mostly) disagreed, finding that those protections don't bar most product liability claims against the companies.

Notably, in April 2026, judges on Massachusetts's highest court shot down Meta's attempt to use Section 230 protection in a lawsuit brought by the state over the safety of Instagram. More on this in the "Lawsuits and Legal Action Updates" section below.

Is There a Class Action for Social Media Addiction?

No. But a number of similar cases have been pulled together into two big (and distinct) groupings.

Social Media Addiction Federal MDL. This "multi-district litigation" (MDL) case, called "In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Product Liability Litigation", is being heard in federal court in California. It includes lawsuits against Meta, Snap, Inc., TikTok, Inc., YouTube, and Google, brought by individual personal injury plaintiffs, dozens of state attorneys general, hundreds of school districts across the country, and several Native American tribes. See our "Updates" section below for the latest news on the social media addiction MDL.

Social Media Cases JCCP5255: This is a grouping of social media addiction/harm cases in California state court (Los Angeles county) called "Social Media Cases Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding 5255." In February 2026, the first of the "bellwether" cases in these grouped cases went to trial, with the jury issuing a landmark verdict against Meta and YouTube. You'll find more updates on the JCCP below.

California and New York Laws Require Social Media "Warning Labels"

A California law passed in October 2025 may signify a new trend when it comes to the dangers of social media use, especially for young users. And it's got close ties to the kinds of warnings that are placed on alcohol and tobacco products across the country.

The California law (AB 56), which goes into effect on January 1, 2027, requires social media companies to display an onscreen warning label when anyone under the age of 18 is using their platforms. According to the California Office of the Attorney General, these warning labels must advise the user "that social media is associated with significant mental health harms and has not been proven safe for young users." The guidelines require that:

  • the warning must be clearly displayed when the child/teen user first accesses the platform on a given day
  • the warning must appear again after three hours of "cumulative active use" on that same day, and
  • as active use continues, the warning must be displayed again at least once per hour.

In December 2025, New York followed California's lead, with Governor Kathy Hochul signing Legislation S4505/A5346, which will "require social media platforms to display labels warning of the dangerous impact certain features can have on young users’ mental health," according to the governor's office.

Like California's social media warning label requirement, the New York law requires that the warning be displayed when a young user first accesses the platform, and that the warning then be displayed periodically as use continues. It won't be possible for users to bypass or click through the warnings.

Have Australia and Indonesia Banned Social Media for Kids?

Yes. In December 2025, an outright ban on the use of social media platforms by children under the age of 16 went into effect in Australia. Platforms that are in violation of the new law will face fines of up to $49.5 million (in Australian dollars), and there are no exemptions for parental permission. In a press release announcing passage of this landmark law, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the ban a "world-leading move by Australia."

Indonesia largely followed suit in March 2026, passing a law that bans social media use by anyone under 16. The law took effect on March 28, 2026, when deactivation of accounts held by anyone under 16 began on certain "high-risk" platforms, starting with YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Roblox, and others. In a speech announcing the new law, Indonesia's Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs said, "The government is here to ensure parents no longer have to fight alone against the algorithmic giants."

Social Media Addiction: Lawsuits and Legal Action Updates

Let's look at the latest developments in lawsuits over harm caused by social media addiction, and related legal action.

Zuckerberg Likely to Testify at Second "Bellwether" Social Media Addiction Trial

The Los Angeles County Superior Court judge overseeing the consolidated social media addiction action (known as JCCP 5255, and detailed above) tentatively ordered Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to appear as a witness at the second bellwether trial to be heard in the grouping of California state law cases, which is set to begin in late July 2026. (As we also touched on earlier, the first bellwether trial resulted in a landmark verdict against Meta and others in March 2026; Zuckerberg also testified in that first trial).

Meta, Snap, TikTok, and YouTube Settle Kentucky School District's Social Media Addiction Lawsuit

In May 2026, Meta announced that it was joining several other big tech companies in settling a closely watched social media addiction lawsuit brought by a Kentucky school district. The terms of the deal weren't disclosed, but the agreement is noteworthy because the Kentucky case is part of the federal MDL (discussed above), and it was set for a June 2026 trial date.

Another 1,200 school districts have filed similar lawsuits that are part of the MDL, so this first trial was widely seen as a "bellwether." It could lead to similar settlement deals from other school districts, who "claim the companies created addictive technologies that resulted in significant costs for mental health counseling, tech programs and other services paid for by schools," according to The New York Times.

Massachusetts Top Court: Meta Has No Section 230 Protection From State's Claims

In April 2026, judges on the top court in Massachusetts unanimously ruled that Meta couldn't use Section 230 to protect itself in a lawsuit brought by the state's attorney general. In that case, Massachusetts is accusing Meta of designing Instagram to hook and corral the attention of young users, and of misleading the public about the safety of the platform.

Claims like these aren't entitled to Section 230 protection, the court decided, since they don't involve Meta's role as a "publisher" of user-generated content. Instead, the allegations zero in on Meta's own conduct in:

  • designing Instagram in a way that "capitalizes on the developmental vulnerabilities of children," and
  • "misleading consumers about the safety of the Instagram platform."

Meta and YouTube Liable in Groundbreaking Social Media Addiction Verdict

In March 2026, a California jury found that Meta and YouTube designed their social media platforms to addict young users, and held the companies liable for $6 million dollars in the first social media addiction lawsuit to go to trial. Get the details on the landmark verdict against Meta and YouTube.

Meta Faces $375M Penalty Over Child Safety

In March 2026, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil fines and penalties for:

  • intentionally designing its platforms to hook young people and keep them on Meta sites
  • misleading families about children's safety on Meta's platforms, and
  • failing to do enough to keep child predators off of Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp.

This case, brought by the New Mexico attorney general's office against Meta included several claims over the intentional, addictive design of the platforms. But its focus was on Meta's failure to keep its platforms safe for kids, and the company's role in enabling sexual exploitation of children. The lawsuit called Meta's platforms a "breeding ground" for that kind of harm.

After hearing all the evidence over six weeks, the jury agreed with the state's prosecutors that Meta had committed thousands of violations of state law, all to the tune of a $375 million penalty that Meta has already vowed to appeal.

Lawsuits Link Instagram and Sextortion to Suicide

A lawsuit filed in December 2025 blames Meta for knowingly connecting online sexual predators with young Instagram users through the platform's "Accounts You May Follow" feature.

The case, filed in Delaware, was brought by the families of two teenage boys who were manipulated into sharing sexually explicit photos of themselves after unknowingly communicating with adult online predators. Sextortion attempts and harassment followed, the lawsuit claims, and both boys committed suicide.

Meta is accused of failing to take reasonable steps to protect young Instagram users despite the company's knowledge that the "Accounts You May Follow" feature had recommended more than a million minors' accounts to adult online predators.

Hawaii Sues TikTok Owner

In December 2025, the state of Hawaii sued ByteDance (which owns TikTok), saying that it intentionally designed its platform to be as addictive as possible, especially when it comes to young users. The lawsuit (State of Hawaii v. ByteDance Inc.) alleges that the company uses "the same dopamine-inducing strategies employed by the gambling industry," and is "unwilling to sacrifice its corporate profits for its users' wellbeing."

Earlier Action by California and the U.S. Dept. of Justice

  • In September 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the "Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act."
  • In August 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit against TikTok, accusing the company of ongoing violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, including knowingly letting children create regular (non-"Kids Mode") TikTok accounts, and allowing them to create, view, and share videos and messages with adults on the regular TikTok platform.

Should I Talk to a Lawyer About Suing for Social Media Harm?

It's becoming clear how addictive and harmful social media can be. This area of law is a relatively new one, but recent verdicts have been encouraging for potential plaintiffs. So, if you're convinced that your case is solid, it might make sense to at least discuss your situation with a lawyer. Doing so could be especially important if you’d be suing for harm that occurred more than a year or two ago.

A law called a "statute of limitations" sets a deadline on your right to bring a case to court, and it can be tricky to figure out when the "clock" starts running on these kinds of cases. Depending on the law in your state, you might need to get your lawsuit filed sooner rather than later to preserve your legal options.

For more information, read about time limits for filing a product liability case and how to find the right injury lawyer.