The New Legal Strategy That Beat Social Media

Summary

---

The Journal. — “The New Legal Strategy That Beat Social Media”

Date: March 30, 2026
Hosts: Jessica Mendoza, Ryan Knutson
Featured Guest: Erin Mulvaney, WSJ Legal Affairs Reporter

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores a landmark legal victory against social media giants Meta and YouTube, spotlighting a novel legal strategy that sidestepped the industry’s traditional immunity from user-driven harms. Instead of targeting harmful content, the plaintiff challenged the design of these platforms, arguing that their algorithms and features are inherently dangerous and addictive—especially for teens. The discussion unpacks the legal, business, and cultural implications of this verdict and compares its potential legacy to that of the tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Social Media’s Legal Shield: Section 230

• Section 230's Role (05:08–05:43)

  • Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects internet companies from liability for third-party content.
  • Designed to foster freedom of expression and protect online businesses from crippling lawsuits.
  • Erin Mulvaney: “Largely, that law provides some immunity for internet companies for third-party content. The idea was that it would give the companies the freedom to grow and not be restrained by the fear of liability and kind of allow for freedom of expression.” (05:22)

• Lingering Question:
  If platforms aren’t liable for user content, can they ever be held accountable? (05:43)

---

2. The Case: Kaylee vs. Meta & YouTube

Who is the Plaintiff?

• Kaylee (pseudonym):
  A 20-year-old woman who began using YouTube at age six, uploaded over 200 videos before age 10, and created over a dozen Instagram accounts before 15. She claims her persistent use contributed to depression, body dysmorphia, and self-harm ideation.
• (03:37–04:42)

Plaintiff's Argument: It’s Product Design, Not Just Content

• Kaylee’s team reframed the issue: social media isn’t just a conduit for content but a product whose design can cause harm—akin to a car with a faulty airbag or toys with lead paint.
  • Erin Mulvaney: “In a way, it’s a simple, straightforward product liability case that you would see against any kind of company that harms someone. But in this case, it was social media companies and how they designed their products.” (06:13)

Defense Arguments and Big Tech CEO Testimonies

• Defense Tactics:

  • Tried to dismiss the case on Section 230 grounds.
  • Pointed to many contributing factors to mental health (genetics, home life, school), questioning whether social media was the root cause.
    • Erin Mulvaney: “They present research and evidence that there are so many things that go into mental health. It could even be genetics. It could be the school district. It could be parental supervision.” (06:35)
  • YouTube argued Kaylee didn't use the platform enough to be "addicted."
  • Meta highlighted Kaylee’s turbulent upbringing and preexisting vulnerabilities.

• (06:32–07:56)

• Notable Moment: Mark Lanier’s Theatrical Prop

  • Plaintiff's lawyer, Mark Lanier, used a cupcake and a tortilla in court to visually explain how social media “exacerbates” pre-existing mental health struggles—social media as the “leavening” that makes problems grow.
    • Jessica Mendoza: “Lanier walked into the courtroom with some baked goods… a cupcake and a tortilla to show how social media can exacerbate other issues.” (08:08)

---

3. The Outcome and Jury Insights

• Jury Verdict:
  Meta and YouTube found liable for failing to warn users about platform dangers. Jury sided with Kaylee after eight days of deliberation, awarding $6 million (with most from Meta, whose Instagram feature was deemed most harmful). (09:00–10:19)

• Jury Perception of Mark Zuckerberg:

  • Some jurors found the Meta CEO’s testimony “disingenuous” and inconsistent, influencing their decision.
    • Erin Mulvaney: “She and some of her other peers found that [Zuckerberg] came off somewhat disingenuous and wasn’t being consistent.” (09:22)

• Defendants’ Responses and Appeals:

  • Both Meta and Google have stated intentions to appeal, emphasizing confidence in their safety records.

---

4. Why It’s a Big Deal

• Beyond Monetary Damages:
  The true significance is the legal precedent—if platforms can be held liable for addictive or harmful design, thousands of similar lawsuits may follow, forcing fundamental changes in tech business models.

  • Erin Mulvaney: “The idea that this argument can work really signals that this legal strategy will be persisting for what we know is thousands of other similar cases that are also moving forward. And that finding is bigger than the actual money.” (10:50)

• Potential Existential Threat:
  Social media companies may need to alter how they design, profit, and engage users to avoid ongoing liability.

  • Erin Mulvaney: “If they continue to lose these arguments, there will be a question of how all internet companies really operate online, and it’ll affect user engagement and how they present these things to the world. It’s pretty existential to their business model.” (10:50)

---

5. The ‘Big Tobacco’ Parallel

• Comparison to Tobacco Litigation:

  • Both industries face accusations of knowingly pushing potentially dangerous, addictive products to young people.
  • Internal documents allegedly revealed knowledge of harm (“Instagram said, quote, we make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls…”) (16:05)
  • Tobacco litigation resulted in the largest U.S. settlement ever ($206 billion) and major marketing restrictions.
  • Jessica Mendoza: “This is being called the big tobacco moment for social media.” (11:33)
  • Erin Mulvaney: “What happened in the 1990s with the tobacco industry was pretty transformational…” (13:57)

• Key Differences:

  • Social media “addiction” is not chemically induced but based on engagement “hooks” (dopamine-driven features).
    • Erin Mulvaney: “There were specific things in these documents about how your brain is spiked by dopamine, by notifications, or the scroll, and that would keep you engaged in it, kind of like nicotine. But there are key differences.” (16:46)

---

6. Regulatory & Cultural Shifts on the Horizon?

• Possible Regulatory Changes:
  Congress and regulators are reconsidering laws like Section 230, and pressure is mounting for built-in safety features and transparency about potential harms. (17:23–18:10)

  • Erin Mulvaney: “I think both sides would say it’s a somewhat inefficient way to do this. But there have been calls for reforms of Section 230 and pushes to require companies to have more built-in features that protect people.” (17:42)

• Recent Legal Wins & Industry Response:

  • The Los Angeles verdict wasn’t the week’s only loss for social media—Meta was also found liable in a New Mexico case regarding child safety.
  • Tech companies have already begun introducing stronger parental controls, teen safety measures, and content moderation tools. (18:10)

• Cultural Impact Forecast:

  • Potential for a long-term shift in societal attitudes about social media, akin to changes in public norms around smoking, especially among youth.
    • Erin Mulvaney: “It’s possible that these cases will, at a minimum, draw attention to some of these struggles if it hasn’t been a question in their mind.” (19:12)

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On Legal Precedent:
  Jessica Mendoza: “So this is sort of just the beginning.” (01:44)

• On Platform Design:
  Erin Mulvaney: “It was a creative theory, and it hadn’t really been tested before—right until this verdict.” (01:22)

• On Jury Deliberations:
  Erin Mulvaney: “She [a juror] mentioned specifically, Mark Zuckerberg… came off somewhat disingenuous and wasn’t being consistent.” (09:22)

• On Historical Parallels:
  Jessica Mendoza: “This is being called the big tobacco moment for social media.” (11:33)

• On Future Industry Response:
  Erin Mulvaney: “If they continue to lose these arguments, there will be a question of how all Internet companies really operate online, and it’ll affect user engagement and how they present these things to the world.” (10:50)

• On Cultural Shifts:
  Jessica Mendoza: “You don’t, you can’t smoke indoors anymore… Do you foresee something similar happening for social media in terms of a cultural shift as a result of these cases?”
  Erin Mulvaney: “I do think there’s a growing concern and awareness around social media as it becomes so much more prevalent, especially in young people’s lives…” (19:12)

---

Notable Timestamps

• 00:05: Framing the legal shield social media has enjoyed (Section 230)
• 03:32: Introduction of Kaylee, the plaintiff
• 05:05: Section 230’s history and relevance
• 06:13: The novel product liability legal approach
• 07:56: Mark Lanier’s courtroom prop moment
• 09:00: Jury verdict and juror perspective on Zuckerberg's testimony
• 10:50: Analysis of broader implications for tech companies
• 11:33: Introduction of ‘Big Tobacco’ industry comparison
• 13:25–14:56: Deep dive into tobacco litigation history and aftermath
• 16:05: Meta’s internal research, and the similarities/differences to tobacco addiction
• 17:23: Regulatory environment and evolving safety features
• 19:12: Prospects for a broader cultural shift

---

Conclusion

This episode dissects a groundbreaking court case that managed to pierce Big Tech’s well-established legal armor, previewing a future where social media companies may be held responsible not just for what’s posted, but for how their platforms are engineered to engage users. Drawing potent parallels to the past battles against Big Tobacco, the discussion lays out the high stakes for platform owners, regulators, parents, and the culture at large—signaling that the most seismic changes to internet platforms, law, and user habits could yet be ahead.

---

Transcript

[Jessica Mendoza]

For decades, social media companies have operated under the protection of a powerful legal shield. If something harmful shows up on their platforms, like harassment or dangerous content, the companies themselves aren't liable. That shield made social media giants virtually untouchable in court until last week in a Los Angeles courtroom, a 20 year old woman took on Meta and YouTube. She claimed that the platforms harmed her mental health. And she won, not by breaking through the shield, but by going around it.

[Erin Mulvaney]

This case took a totally different route.

[Jessica Mendoza]

Our colleague Erin Mulvaney covers legal affairs. And this case, she says, didn't focus on the content on these platforms. It focused on how the platforms were

[Erin Mulvaney]

made, the way they designed the products. So that would be the algorithms used to attract people, things we know about like the infinite scroll or notifications that can lead to dopamine hits for kids and things like that.

[Jessica Mendoza]

And the plaintiff's argument was simple. If a product's design can cause harm, the platform maker should be held responsible.

[Erin Mulvaney]

I think it was a creative theory and it hadn't really been tested before

[Jessica Mendoza]

right until this verdict. What could this outcome mean for meta and YouTube?

[Erin Mulvaney]

That could mean that these companies will be forced to look at how they design their products, how they operate. And for us, that would mean how we interact with it and how we use it.

[Jessica Mendoza]

So this is sort of just the beginning.

[Erin Mulvaney]

I think it's the. I mean, this was a loss and they're going to have to think about what down the line this could mean for their products.

[Jessica Mendoza]

Welcome to the Journal, our show about money, business and power. I'm Jessica Mendoza. It's Monday, March 30th. Coming up on the show, the verdict that could fundamentally change social media as we know it.

[Intuit Enterprise Suite Sponsor]

This episode of the Journal is presented by Intuit Enterprise Suite. If your finance team spends more time finding data than using it. If there's one entity here and one here and one here and one here. If scaling your business feels like starting over, you need the Intuit ERP. Intuit Enterprise Suite, the AI native ERP is here from the makers of QuickBooks. Learn [e-mail] ERP

[Alexa Sponsor]

this episode is brought to you by Alexa. Say hello to Alexa and see how Alexa can do more for you. Need tickets to that last minute show? Craving your favorite restaurant? Sit back, relax and talk naturally. Alexa's on it. Alexa learns your preferences to create a personalized experience. And now Alexa is free with prime on your Amazon devices like echo and Fire TV. Learn more at Amazon.com Alexaplus.

[Jessica Mendoza]

This landmark social media case started with one person, the plaintiff.

[Erin Mulvaney]

So she's referred to as Kaylee GM in court documents to protect her identity. So I'll call her Kaylee. So Kaylee is a now 20 year old young woman who has a lot of mental health struggles in her life and pretty much no one was disputing that she's had a hard go of it, including the social media companies. But she has been a prolific user of many of these products growing up.

[Jessica Mendoza]

Kaylee testified that she started watching YouTube videos when she was six years old. Before she turned 10, she had uploaded over 200 videos to the platform. Before she turned 15, Kaley had created more than a dozen accounts on Instagram, which Meta owns. Her lead attorney said that on one day, Kaylee spent 16 hours on Instagram.

[Erin Mulvaney]

So that was the connection to how her persistent social media use led to a lot of her mental health struggles that she has today.

[Jessica Mendoza]

Kaley claimed that years of using these platforms worsened her depression and her body dysmorphia and contributed to thoughts of self harm. On its face, this is the kind of case that should be hard to win because of that legal shield that's largely protected social media companies up till now. It's called section 230.

[Historical Tobacco Industry Voice]

Section 230. Section 230.

[Jessica Mendoza]

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The law was passed in 1996, long before Instagram, before YouTube, before Infinite Scroll. For better or worse, it paved the way for the modern Internet.

[Erin Mulvaney]

Largely, that law provides some immunity for Internet companies for third party content. The idea was that it would give the companies the freedom to grow and not be restrained by the fear of liability and kind of allow for freedom of expression.

[Jessica Mendoza]

At the same time, the creation of Section 230 also raised a question. If a platform couldn't be held liable for things people post, is there any way a platform could be held accountable? Kaylee's legal team thought so, and they came up with a novel strategy. Don't think ofMea and YouTube as spaces that host content. Think of them as products. If you can sue a car company for a faulty airbag, or sue a toy company over lead paint, why not an app for how it's designed?

[Erin Mulvaney]

So in a way, it's a simple, straightforward product liability case that you would see against any kind of company that harms someone. But in this case, it was social media companies and how they designed their products. So that was a different angle to get at blaming them for the harm that kids have from these tools.

[Jessica Mendoza]

What was the defense from the social media companies?

[Erin Mulvaney]

First of all, they did try to get this case thrown out and not even go to trial by arguing section 230. And they still are trying to fight for that in some of the federal litigation. But they do make a point, and they present research and evidence that there are so many things that go into mental health. It could even be genetics. It could be the school district. It could be parental supervision. There are a lot of things. So they kind of argued that there's not a direct link that says social media is the reason this happened to this woman.

[Jessica Mendoza]

YouTube argued that Kaley didn't spend enough time on the platform to be addicted. Lawyers for Meta pointed to Kaley's turbulent childhood. She'd been bullied at school, and her sister had been hospitalized for an eating disorder. Was it fair to pin so much of her struggles on social media? During the trial, some big names took the stand, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and the head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri. Mosseri pushed back on the idea of social media addiction, calling it, quote, problematic usage. So I can see what they're saying here, right? Kind of making this an issue more of personal responsibility and impulse control. How did Cayleigh's lawyer, Mark Lanier, push back on that?

[Erin Mulvaney]

Yeah, so Mark Lanier is a famous trial attorney. He is based in Texas, and his style is theatrical. He uses props.

[Jessica Mendoza]

And in this case, Lanier walked into the courtroom with some baked goods.

[Erin Mulvaney]

So he showed a cupcake, a cupcake

[Jessica Mendoza]

and a tortilla to show how social media can exacerbate other issues.

[Erin Mulvaney]

The visual was a flat tortilla versus a rising cupcake. I don't know if a cupcake would necessarily be representative of a bad thing, but he was explaining there's something that makes something rise and makes it grow. The cupcake, and it's the leavening. And that's what social media does. These issues aren't as bad. It's only flat without this element.

[Jessica Mendoza]

That's what the jury had to decide. Were Caylee's struggles due to a whole confluence of issues, as the social media companies argued, or did these apps and their features meaningfully make Caylee's struggles worse? In the end, the jury sided with the plaintiff.

[Narrator/Host]

A jury found tech giants Meta and

[Jessica Mendoza]

Google liable for failing to warn its users about the dangers of their social media platforms. The jury took eight days to deliberate this case. What did you hear about what happened during deliberations?

[Erin Mulvaney]

So my colleague actually did have the opportunity to speak with a couple jurors, and one of the jurors that we quoted, she mentioned specifically, Mark Zuckerberg. Was testifying, and she said she and some of her other peers found that he came off somewhat disingenuous and wasn't being consistent. So she specifically mentioned the executive's testimony didn't quite work for her.

[Jessica Mendoza]

After the verdict, a Meta spokesperson said, quote, we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online. A spokesman for Alphabet's Google, which owns YouTube, said it disagrees with the verdict. In the California case, Both Meta and YouTube said they plan to appeal. In total, Kaylee was awarded $6 million from both Meta and YouTube, with the Lion's share coming from Meta. The jury found Instagram was more addictive and harmful to her.

[Erin Mulvaney]

Very obviously, I think anyone would agree that $6 million is pretty good money for a person, but that's not very much for a company like Meta or YouTube, right?

[Jessica Mendoza]

Meta made something like 60 billion with a B in profit just last year. And that's just Meta, right?

[Erin Mulvaney]

Yeah, that's exactly right.

[Jessica Mendoza]

Still, Aaron says the case was about more than just one payout. It was about whether or not the legal argument the plaintiffs made was winnable.

[Erin Mulvaney]

The idea that this argument can work really signals that this legal strategy will be persisting for what we know is thousands of other similar cases that are also moving forward. And that finding is bigger than the actual money. The bigger picture is that social media companies have to be thinking about what to do if they keep losing these cases. If they continue to lose these arguments, there will be a question of how all Internet companies really operate online, and it'll affect user engagement and how they present these things to the world. It's pretty existential to their business model,

[Jessica Mendoza]

and there is a precedent for verdicts like this to spark a chain reaction and turn a major industry on its head. This is being called the big tobacco moment for social media. That's after the break.

[Narrator/Host]

This episode is brought to you by Indeed, the right hire can make or break your company, especially if you're a small business. And relying on luck to find that person isn't really the best strategy. But you know what is. Using Indeed Sponsored Jobs. You can use it to boost your job post, to make sure it reaches more people with the right talents, certification, location, and more. Sponsored jobs posted directly on indeed are 95% more likely to report a hire than non sponsored jobs. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results when you need the right person to cut through the chaos. This is a job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves@ Indeed.com podcast just go to Indeed.com podcast right now and support the show by saying you heard about Indeed here. Indeed.com podcast terms and conditions apply. Hiring now then this is a job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.

[Claude from Anthropic Sponsor]

This episode is brought to you by Claude from Anthropic. If you're the kind of person who listens to this show, you like going deeper. Not just the headline, but the mechanics behind it. Claude is built for that same kind of thinking. It presents multiple sides, flags where sources disagree, and helps you work through the nuance so you can form your own view. See why problem solvers choose Claude as their thinking partner? Try it free at Claude AI TheJournal.

[Jessica Mendoza]

An industry that made products that got people hooked, that targeted teens, that saw internal reports about safety concerns and kept going anyway, prompting a wave of litigation. This wasn't social media in 2026. This was Big Tobacco in the 1990s.

[Historical Tobacco Industry Voice]

Yes or no, do you believe nicotine is not addict? I believe nicotine is not addictive yet, Mr. Johnson Congressman cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definition.

[Erin Mulvaney]

What happened in the 1990s with the tobacco industry was pretty transformational because people smoked cigarettes and if they got lung cancer for a long time the tobacco companies were able to say that's their personal choice. They smoked, you know, and they got addicted and that's not our fault. And there was similar litigation accusing Big Tobacco of hurting people and like adding to the public health crisis. The key there was that they knew the products were dangerous.

[Jessica Mendoza]

Internal company documents showed that tobacco companies had known for years that nicotine was addictive. Through litigation, tobacco companies were held liable for harming consumers, leading to the biggest settlement in U.S. history at the time. The Attorney Generals have now before them a tobacco settlement proposal that would provide the states with $206 billion through the year 2025.

[Erin Mulvaney]

That led to a big settlement, but also required these companies to make big changes about how they operate. They had to pay a lot of money for anti smoking campaigns and then on top of that they had to change a lot about how they marketed things.

[Historical Tobacco Industry Voice]

There will no longer be billboards, there will no longer be Joe Camel, there will no longer be the Marlboro Man.

[Erin Mulvaney]

An example would be putting cartoon characters on their products.

[Historical Tobacco Industry Voice]

The Marlboro man has just ridden out of town on Joe Camel and there

[Erin Mulvaney]

was a fall off of young people who were buying cigarettes in the aftermath,

[Jessica Mendoza]

the industry began to shrink. In 1990, cigarette companies sold more than 500 billion cigarettes a year. By 2022, that was down nearly 70%.

[Erin Mulvaney]

Obviously, cigarettes are still part of the world today. There are still smokers, but the thought there is. If you get people young, they stay smokers forever.

[Jessica Mendoza]

It sounds familiar.

[Erin Mulvaney]

Yeah, right.

[Jessica Mendoza]

During the social media trial in la, the plaintiff's attorneys leaned into internal research from Meta. Those documents noted that Instagram said, quote, we make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls, and that Meta executives had known about potentially harmful effects of their product on children and moved forward. Anyway, Meta said the attempt to blame teen mental health on social media companies, quote, oversimplifies a serious issue. So going back to the analogy with big tobacco, I mean, are there limits to this analogy because, like, you know, cigarettes are chemically addictive? Can the same argument be made for using social media?

[Erin Mulvaney]

The plaintiffs are actually arguing that, and they're arguing that these companies knew of the dangers, of how they were trying to keep their customer base, they were trying to keep these young users engaged. There were specific things in these documents about how your brain is spiked by dopamine, by notifications, or the scroll, and that would keep you engaged in it, kind of like nicotine. But there are key differences. It's hard to know what will happen because there's still so much uncertainty about how this will shake out in the end.

[Jessica Mendoza]

It wasn't just lawsuits that forced change in the tobacco industry. Cigarette companies were also pushed by regulators to change how they marketed their products. Federal agencies required those companies to be more transparent about the dangers of smoking. The question is, could social media platforms end up facing the same kind of pressure?

[Erin Mulvaney]

It's certainly been talked about in Congress and it was a renewed conversation because of this litigation, and that's an ongoing discussion. I think that for now, the way this is being determined is in the courts. And I think both sides would say it's a somewhat inefficient way to do this. But there have been calls for reforms of Section 230 and pushes to require companies to have more built in features that protect people.

[Jessica Mendoza]

Kayleigh's landmark case against social media companies wasn't the only big court decision. Last week, Meta was hit with a double whammy. The day before the Los Angeles verdict, a jury in New Mexico ruled against them. In a separate case. They found that Meta failed to protect children from predators on its platform. A company spokesperson says that Meta disagrees with the verdict and that the company plans to appeal, saying, quote, we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online. Within the past couple years, companies like Meta and YouTube have rolled out teen accounts with more safety protections, stronger parental controls, content filters, and screen time reminders. One thing that you sort of alluded to earlier, you know, in the wake of those tobacco lawsuits, there was a bigger cultural shift about how the public thinks about smoking. You know, you don't, you can't smoke indoors anymore and pretty much anywhere in the US do you foresee something similar happening for social media in terms of a cultural shift as a result of these cases?

[Erin Mulvaney]

I do think there's a growing concern and awareness around social media as it becomes so much more prevalent, especially in young people's lives. And I won't leave adults out of it either. But it's clearly a big part of the way young people experience socialization and culture. So I think a lot of parents are already concerned and there's a lot of research and debate about this. It's possible that these cases will, at a minimum, draw attention to some of these struggles if it hasn't been a question in their mind. But, you know, the companies themselves do now, I believe, have an incentive to think about the safety features they offer.

[Jessica Mendoza]

So if you're a big tech company, like, what are you sweating about right now?

[Erin Mulvaney]

I think these lawsuits are based on very sad set of facts, you know, and they wouldn't dispute that these are heartbreaking stories and struggles that you wouldn't want any young person to experience. And liability for those not only hurts their brands, but could ultimately hurt their bottom line if they're forced to completely change their business model, which is to draw and engage users. So I think that they're closely watching this. One of the meta attorneys said, we'll keep talking about this for years, you know, and I think that's probably true.

[Jessica Mendoza]

That's all for today. Monday, March 30 the Journal is a co production of Spotify and the Wall Street Journal. Additional reporting in this episode from Megan Bobrowski, Laura Nelson and Eric Schwartzel. Thanks for listening. See you tomorrow.

[The Future of Everything Event Announcer]

The Future of Everything is The Wall Street Journal's flagship live event, returning to New York City May 4th through 5th. Be there as CEOs, policymakers and innovators sit down with our journalists to answer the most pressing questions of the day. From finance, tech and economic policy to sports streaming and style, we're bringing together today's most compelling newsmakers for two days of conversations on what's Ahead. Listeners of this podcast can access exclusive discounted rates by visiting WSJ Com Future. That's WSJ. Com Future.