Over the last nine years, however, courts and lawyers have begun advancing a different theory: technology companies should sometimes be held responsible for how they design and monetize their products. Advocates say design features and business models—recommendation algorithms, engagement prompts, personalization and monetization mechanics—can foreseeably cause harm and ought to be actionable under product-liability-style claims, an approach in part inspired by litigation against Big Tobacco.
There have already been signs of change. In 2021 Goldberg sued Omegle over alleged facilitation of child sexual exploitation; the company later shut down after a settlement. An appeals court the same year allowed a lawsuit against Snapchat to proceed by rejecting the company’s Section 230 defense in a case tied to fatal car crashes involving a speed filter; Snapchat settled in 2023.
Last week produced the highest-profile outcomes yet for this legal strategy. In separate jury trials, a Los Angeles jury found that Meta (owner of Instagram) and Google’s YouTube were designed in ways that foster addiction and that that design contributed to the mental-health struggles of a woman who began using the platforms as a child; the jury awarded her $6 million. In New Mexico a jury ordered Meta to pay the state $375 million, finding the company failed to protect young users from child predators. A second phase of that case will decide whether Meta’s practices constitute a public nuisance and what structural remedies might be ordered; the state attorney general has said he will seek court-imposed changes to Meta’s apps.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers and child-safety advocates call the verdicts a turning point. Goldberg said the rulings reflect a new ability to hold platforms accountable for harms tied to product design, and Sarah Gardner of the Heat Initiative said the decisions could build momentum in courts and in policy debates. Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center, which represented the plaintiff in Los Angeles, argued that financial penalties can change corporate behavior: “If you grab them by the pocketbook, their hearts and minds will follow,” he said.
Meta and Google say they will appeal. Meta’s defense argues teen mental-health struggles can’t be traced to a single app, while Google has disputed the premise that YouTube should be treated as social media. Observers expect these issues—how design choices relate to legal responsibility and what limits Section 230 imposes—to be tested further, potentially reaching the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, litigation has proliferated. Moody’s counts more than 4,000 pending cases against 166 companies alleging addictive software design. Plaintiffs have broadened the approach beyond social platforms to target video-game makers, online gambling apps and makers of AI chatbots. In Massachusetts, a suit accuses sports-betting apps DraftKings and FanDuel of designing products that encourage compulsive betting through personalized bonuses and nudges; plaintiff’s attorney Jennifer Hoekstra described the tactics as tailored to lure individual users back. DraftKings said it would vigorously defend itself; FanDuel did not respond to requests for comment.
Lawyers for victims and public-interest groups say even modest damage awards can shift incentives and spur reform. Firms representing plaintiffs have also sued AI chatbot makers, including OpenAI, alleging some chatbot interactions have worsened mental-health crises. OpenAI has said it is working with mental-health experts to improve chatbot responses to signs of distress.
Advocates hope courtroom wins will combine with regulatory pressure, public opinion and market forces to push companies to “internalize the cost of safety” and redesign products to reduce foreseeable harms, especially to children. The lawsuits are prompting courts to reconsider long-standing doctrines that limited platform liability and to grapple with whether particular design features translate into legal responsibility when they cause predictable damage.
Meta and Google maintain their defenses and will pursue appeals, but the wave of new cases and recent jury findings have already shifted expectations about how courts, regulators and companies may approach accountability for digital harms. For plaintiffs, advocates and policymakers, the central question now is whether early verdicts will prompt broader changes in corporate behavior, industry practice and public policy.
Google is a financial supporter of NPR.”}