Social media addiction and mental‑health harms are rapidly becoming one of the most consequential emerging litigation arenas in the United States, with thousands of lawsuits now pending against major platforms like Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube. Plaintiffs—including children, parents, and state attorneys general—allege that these companies intentionally designed “addictive” products that impair youth mental health, undercut academic performance, and fuel crises ranging from depression and anxiety to self‑harm and eating disorders.
At the heart of these cases is a novel product‑liability theory: social media platforms are being treated less like neutral publishers and more like manufacturers of harmful consumer products. Courts in the federal social‑media‑addiction multidistrict litigation have already allowed many negligence and consumer‑protection claims to proceed, rejecting broad defenses based on Section 230 and the First Amendment. Trials are now unfolding where plaintiffs will argue that platforms hid internal research on youth vulnerability, used manipulative algorithms, and failed to provide adequate warnings or safety features.
Parallel to these private mass actions, state and local governments have launched their own lawsuits, framing social media’s impact as a public‑health crisis. Cities and school districts allege that platforms have contributed to a youth mental‑health epidemic and are seeking damages and design reforms. If early verdicts favor
