The Daily: "Social Media on Trial"

Date: January 29, 2026

Host: Rachel Abrams

Guest: Cecilia Kang (Technology Reporter, The New York Times)

Episode Overview

This episode covers a wave of new lawsuits against social media giants—like Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube—which allege that these platforms are addictive and have caused a mental health crisis among children and teens. Instead of focusing on the content spread by social media, these lawsuits focus on the platforms' addictive designs, claiming personal injury from features engineered to keep users engaged. Cecilia Kang explains why these cases could be an existential threat to social media companies, draws parallels to the historic lawsuits against Big Tobacco, and explores how companies are planning to defend themselves.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background: The Claims Against Social Media

• Widespread concern has grown about how social media harms children's mental health.

  • Reference to TikTok being investigated for child safety, and Instagram’s internal research showing negative mental health impacts (00:21–01:48).
  • Quote:

    "Research shows 95% of teens are on social media. More than a third say they're on constantly." — Rachel Abrams (01:32)

• Personal stories: The platforms teach vulnerable users negative beliefs about themselves, e.g., body image issues linked to Instagram.

  • Quote:

    "Social media taught me things about myself that I didn't even know, like how I had an ugly nose or how my weight wasn't the proper weight." — Cecilia Kang (01:52)

• Call for regulatory action:

  • Quote:

    "Unregulated social media is a weapon of mass destruction that continues to jeopardize the safety, privacy, and well-being of all American youth. It's time to act." (02:09)

2. What Makes These Lawsuits Different?

• Prior cases focused on content/social media as a publisher, invoking First Amendment/Section 230 protections.
• The new cluster centers on personal injury claims tied to the addictive nature of the technology, which allows plaintiffs to sidestep "free speech" defenses (03:06–04:42).
  • Quote:

    "This is less about the content they host and this is more about the nature of the technologies. And this is a really novel legal theory. It's essentially social media's Big Tobacco moment." — Cecilia Kang (03:53)

3. How the Lawsuits Are Structured

• The initial trials (the "bellwethers") involve individual plaintiffs, representing thousands of similar complaints (05:15).
• Example: "KGM" plaintiff used YouTube from age 8, Instagram at 9, Musical.ly/TikTok at 10, Snapchat at 11.
  • Mother claims she had no idea of the dangers, would have prevented her daughter's access if informed (05:40).
  • Addictive features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmic recommendations are being targeted as causes for addiction, anxiety, depression, and body image issues (06:30–07:58).
• Other lawsuits by state AGs and school districts target companies for being a "public nuisance" and seek damages to cover the costs of addressing the youth mental health crisis (08:25).

4. Legal Hurdles: What Must Plaintiffs Prove?

• Causation: Plaintiffs need expert evidence showing that social media features (infinite scroll, autoplay) directly led to addictive behavior and harm, and that companies knew about these potential harms (09:14–10:15).
• Internal documents are key, including:
  • Internal Meta research into the harm of beauty filters on Instagram (2018–2020), including an executive’s warning to Mark Zuckerberg about toxicity for girls—which was ignored (10:25–12:16).

5. Demands of the Lawsuits

• Monetary damages.
• Product changes:
  • Stronger age verification.
  • More parental controls.
  • Removing or altering features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and snapstreaks (12:23–13:33).
  • Explanation of snapstreaks as an example of engineered engagement (13:01).

6. Existential Threat to Business Models

• These features are critical to the ad-driven business model—removing them would fundamentally threaten the platforms’ profitability (13:33–13:51).

  • Quote:

    "The business model is advertising. And what really fuels advertising revenue is engagement. These tools are meant to keep people more engaged." — Cecilia Kang (13:51)

• Two companies (Snap and TikTok) have settled the first KGM case; Meta and YouTube still plan to go to trial (14:00–14:50).

7. Why Not Just Settle? The Companies’ Defense

• Multiple lawsuits make global settlement complicated.
• Meta and YouTube believe they can still rely on Section 230 protections and plan to argue that mental health issues have many causes, not just social media (15:44–17:02).
  • Quote:

    "They're going to say that it's multifactorial. It could be school problems, stress with friends ... and not social media alone." — Cecilia Kang (16:35)

• The difficulty of establishing a direct, causal link between technology and harm will be a battleground (17:02–18:03).

8. Societal Implications & The Big Picture

• If the jury finds for the plaintiffs, the blame for youth mental health issues could shift from children/their families to the companies themselves—paralleling how views of tobacco changed (18:03–19:19).
  • Quote:

    "With all of these young people who have been blamed for years ... the conversation might change. The blame could lie in a different place: with the social media companies now." — Cecilia Kang (18:32)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the stakes for social media:

  "It's essentially social media's Big Tobacco moment, which led ... to the decline of smoking. And so many in social media see this as a really existential moment." — Cecilia Kang (03:53)

• On design features:

  "These very addictive products that use features like infinite scrolling ... and algorithms that direct you ... all these features led her to overuse social media and become addicted." — Cecilia Kang (06:50)

• On company knowledge:

  "Employees within the company implored [Zuckerberg] not to [bring back beauty filters], including an executive ... she said that her own daughter suffered from body dysmorphia." — Cecilia Kang (11:10)

• On the parallel with tobacco:

  "Remember, decades ago when the trials began against Big Tobacco, it seemed crazy ... but they did." — Cecilia Kang (18:32)

Key Timestamps

| Time | Segment/Topic | |-----------|------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:21 | Introduction: Social media litigation overview | | 03:06 | What makes the new lawsuits novel and existential | | 05:15 | Bellwether cases and KGM's story | | 08:25 | Litigation from states and school districts | | 09:14 | The legal hurdles, causation, and what must be proven | | 10:25 | The internal Meta emails about beauty filters | | 12:23 | Plaintiffs’ specific demands: damages and design changes | | 13:01 | What is a snapstreak and why it's considered addictive | | 13:51 | Addictive features' link to business models | | 15:44 | Why Meta and YouTube are going to trial | | 17:02 | Causal link complications and jury role | | 18:32 | Societal blame shift: legacy of the lawsuits |

Tone & Style

• Conversational and explanatory, with a sense of urgency and gravity about the social and legal stakes. Cecilia Kang draws clear, accessible parallels to tobacco history, and the conversation is empathetic toward the impacted youth and parents.

Summary Takeaways

This episode highlights a seismic shift in the legal fight over social media. Rather than challenging these platforms over the specific content they host, a new line of lawsuits claims the very design of these platforms is addicting—and responsible for an epidemic of youth mental health issues. Plaintiffs hope to prove that companies knew about these harms, did not act, and put profits first. The outcome could determine whether social media follows the same path as the tobacco industry, with broader legal liability and regulation, or whether powerful legal shields—like Section 230—will hold strong.