Two landmark jury verdicts in two days. A $375 million verdict in New Mexico followed by a $6 million verdict out of the Los Angeles Superior Court against Meta and YouTube. Both cases center on the same disturbing allegation: that social media companies knowingly designed their platforms to addict children—and profited from it.
- Attorney Emmie Paulos of the Levin Firm joined the We Don’t Color on the Dog podcast this week to explain what these verdicts mean and why the dam may have finally broken on Big Tech’s legal immunity.
“They Knew”
The most damning revelation from years of litigation isn’t just that social media platforms harmed children—it’s that the companies knew they were doing it.
- “The social media platforms in general were very well aware of what was happening and how their platforms were negatively impacting youth,” Paulos said. “This is something that internally the companies were looking at, they were researching, doing their own independent evaluations and surveys. So this wasn’t a surprise to them.”
Despite that internal knowledge, the companies kept building and refining features designed to maximize the time users spent on their platforms because more time meant more ad revenue.
Built to Hook You—Especially Kids
The evolution of social media from a simple communication tool to an engagement machine didn’t happen by accident.
- “The platforms started slowly changing and adding these engagement features without a natural stop,” Paulos explained. “The infinite scroll, the push notification—all of these features had one end purpose: to keep you on the platform for as long as possible.”
For children, the consequences were especially severe. “They just don’t have the same impulse control that an adult does,” she said. “It’s just a perfect breeding ground for them to get hooked on these products.”
Cracking the Legal Shield
For years, the social media industry hid behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, treating it as blanket immunity from lawsuits over platform content. Breaking through that defense required a fundamental shift in legal strategy.
- “We had to reframe how we look at these cases and really focus on the features and the design of the platform—how these features and how these designs are harmful and how they’re addictive,” Paulos said. “That got us to where we are today.”
Targeting product design rather than published content turned out to be the key that unlocked the courthouse door.
The Los Angeles verdict, as significant as it is, represents only the beginning of a much larger legal reckoning. Paulos outlined a packed litigation calendar: more personal injury trials in Los Angeles, school district claims headed to federal court in California in June, and state attorney general cases set for trial this summer.
- “You’re going to see the social media companies really having all of these angles coming at them—the schools, the states, personal injury plaintiffs,” she said. “There’s definitely going to be a lot of momentum.”
