The verdict delivered on March 25, 2026, holding Meta and Google responsible for purposefully designing social media platforms to be addictive, and knowing it can be harmful, is flawed at multiple levels.
At its core, this ruling negates personal responsibility for choices. Addiction is not a one-dimensional construct that is contributed to by a single factor. The ruling ignores extensive medical research showing that a multitude of factors increase or decrease the risk of addictive behaviors. Genetic proclivity, co-existence of other mental health conditions, lack of adequate parental oversight, isolation, and peer pressure can increase the risk of social media overuse.
As a psychiatrist, I wholeheartedly agree that millions of people engage with social media at times in an unhealthy way. However, in order to effectively mitigate harmful effects that can occur, we must understand the root causes. Simply blaming Meta and Google is a massive oversimplification and will likely reinforce the problem by both ignoring certain important causes as well as creating a financial incentive for proving harmful effects.
Social Media Addiction Is Not a Formal Diagnosis
This legal battle was won based on showing a direct link between social media addiction and harmful outcomes. But social media addiction is a construct that does not technically exist as a medical entity.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th Edition (DSM-5), which is the evidence-based gold standard classification system of psychiatric diagnoses, does not consider social media addiction to be a legitimate diagnosis. According to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), there is insufficient scientific evidence that social media use results in clinically significant impairment or distress to a degree that classifies it in DSM-5 as an addictive disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2023). It is actively being investigated as an area of concern, but the APA’s current position is that “social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people” (APA, 2023). This is based on studies conducted with thousands of adolescents using standardized assessments. The legal argument is therefore based on a medical diagnosis that does not exist.
Blaming Companies Sets a Risky Precedent
Holding companies responsible for patterns of engagement and individual behavioral outcomes is a dangerous, slippery slope. What is the role of personal agency in decision-making?
The business model for social media, of course, is designed to attract users as is customary for businesses in general. We have not held companies such as Starbucks or Dunkin’ Donuts responsible for causing an obesity epidemic. These companies knowingly promote food and drinks containing processed sugars, which contribute to weight gain and food addictions. They do this to earn a profit. The personal and societal toll related to serious medical problems resulting from obesity is well documented. Are these companies next in line to be held legally liable?
What about alcohol sales in this country? Alcohol is legal for individuals over age 20, yet underage drinking among high school and college students is rampant. The brain is still developing until the age of about 26. For those who become addicted, should companies such as Anheuser-Busch or Heineken be held responsible for the negative consequences caused by alcohol consumption? If a 21-year-old intoxicated driver harms someone in a crash, should the law hold Anheuser-Busch responsible? Should an individual who chooses to drive drunk be rewarded with a financial settlement from Anheuser-Busch?
Cannabis is legal in 24 states in the U.S. as of 2026 and is widely available. It is available for those over age 20 but is commonly used by adolescents as early as junior high school. A growing body of scientific literature shows that cannabis can decrease IQ and increase the risk of psychotic breaks. Yet when these bad outcomes occur, the cannabis industry is not held accountable. The industry makes billions of dollars in profits each year, despite clear evidence of toxicity to the brain and increased risk of addiction, often due to extremely high THC content. (Plutchik, L., 2024)
Should casinos be required to pay the gambling debts for those who become addicted? Are casinos somehow supposed to screen out those patrons who may not know when to stop gambling or when something enjoyable becomes harmful?
What about credit card companies? If someone gets into debt from excessive shopping, should American Express or Discover be legally responsible to pay these debts? Could an argument be made that credit card companies are to blame because they extended credit to those who were harmed by a shopping addiction? Did their actions directly lead to an individual’s overspending using credit?
To hold social media companies responsible for creating addictive behaviors in adolescents is a one-dimensional perspective that, at best, is grossly oversimplified and inaccurate, and at worst, sets a dangerous precedent about personal responsibility.