Two recent court verdicts in the United States have marked a significant shift in legal accountability for social media companies over the impact of their platforms on children. Juries in California and New Mexico ruled last month that companies such as Meta and YouTube bear responsibility for designing products that intentionally foster addiction and cause harm to minors. These cases, the first of their kind to hold social media firms liable in this way, have exposed internal documents revealing deliberate strategies to maximise user engagement, even at the expense of child welfare.

In the Los Angeles trial, evidence was presented showing Meta executives comparing platform mechanics to drug pushing, while an internal YouTube memo reportedly identified “viewer addiction” as a corporate goal. These findings have intensified scrutiny of social media companies, with more than 1,500 similar lawsuits pending in California alone.

Amid this growing legal pressure, the CEO of Pinterest, Bill Ready, publicly acknowledged that the current configuration of social media platforms is unsafe for users under 16. This admission coincided with the UK House of Lords reaffirming support for a cross-party initiative seeking to ban harmful social media services for children below that age threshold. Despite this, the UK government, under Labour leadership, twice blocked the proposal in the Commons, opting instead to pursue alternative measures.

The government’s response includes a three-month consultation aimed at parents and children, described by critics as flawed and biased. Opponents argue the consultation assumes early engagement with technology is inevitable and prioritises “safe” use rather than outright restrictions on harmful platforms. Questions posed to children as young as ten have raised eyebrows for suggesting that under-16s might be allowed to share nude images, communicate with strangers, or reveal their location online.

Additionally, the government announced pilot schemes involving around 300 families to trial measures such as digital curfews and social media bans. Critics contend that these pilots lack scientific rigor and a meaningful sample size, and that blanket bans or curfews may not effectively address the nuanced risks posed by social media features designed to foster addiction and harm.

Advocates for stronger regulation argue that the evidence of social media’s dangers to young people is already overwhelming, citing instances of harm and addiction unveiled in court, as well as admissions from Silicon Valley executives. They warn that delaying decisive action in favour of incremental and inconclusive measures risks perpetuating preventable harm to a new generation of children.

The ongoing debate reflects contrasting views between those pushing for comprehensive restrictions on youth use of social media to protect mental health and safety, and government officials favouring a more cautious, consultative approach. With legal findings increasingly placing blame on tech firms, the pressure mounts on policymakers to implement more robust protections for children in the digital age.