Section 230 Protects Social Media Companies—Except When It Doesn’t

Last updated 18 hours ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

A 1996 law called Section 230 protects internet companies from lawsuits for what users post—a reasonable protection when the internet was message boards and chatrooms. But the trial that began Monday in Los Angeles tests whether that shield extends to something else: the deliberate design choices the companies made.

Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube are defending themselves before a jury over allegations they deliberately built their platforms to be addictive to children.

What Makes This Trial Different

The plaintiff’s lawsuit doesn’t blame Instagram for what other users posted. It blames the platform for features like infinite scroll, recommendations that use algorithms to show you posts designed to keep you scrolling, and notification systems timed to pull users back repeatedly throughout the day.

The plaintiff tried to quit multiple times. Her mother installed third-party software to limit access. K.G.M. found workarounds—not because she was particularly tech-savvy, but because the platform was designed to be that compelling.

Platforms aren’t responsible for what users post, the same way a newspaper isn’t responsible for letters to the editor. But if a newspaper designed its building to be unsafe, that’s not protected. The platform itself is the product. If a product is designed to harm people, that’s a legal problem.

Internal Documents Show What Companies Knew

At the start of the trial, the lawyer suing Meta showed the jury internal company documents that Meta had to hand over during the lawsuit, which Meta tried to keep secret.

One read: “Teens can’t switch off from Instagram even if they want to.”

Another: “IG is a drug.” Response: “Lol, I mean, all social media. We’re basically pushers.”

A 2019 internal study explicitly compared how Instagram gives users rewards to how slot machines work, noting both deliver “quick fixes of dopamine” through unpredictable rewards.

Meta studied how their platforms affect users and documented it in presentations with titles like “Teen Mental Health: Creatures of Habit.” They kept building features specifically designed to maximize teen engagement anyway.

When Meta’s lawyers tried to keep these documents secret, Judge Kuhl found evidence that lawyers had advised employees to “remove,” “block,” and “limit” internal research that could increase the company’s legal exposure. That’s potentially hiding evidence to avoid getting in trouble, and it affects how a jury views everything else a company says.

How Courts Are Narrowing the Law

Courts started changing how they interpret this law before the social media cases. In 2021, a federal appeals court considered whether Snapchat could claim Section 230 protection for its Speed Filter—a feature that encouraged users to drive at dangerous speeds by displaying their speedometer while filming videos.

Snapchat argued the filter was protected because it displayed user-generated content. The court said no. The Speed Filter was a design choice Snapchat made. Removing it wouldn’t change what posts users see or how Snapchat removes harmful content. That made it a product issue, not a content issue.

The key legal question is: are platforms responsible for what users post (protected by law) or for how they designed the platform (possibly not protected)?

Some courts have spelled out legal rules where design features like weak age verification, weak parental controls, and deliberately complex account deletion processes can count as design flaws that companies can be sued for.

But some courts have found that infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations are protected by the law, because changing them would mean showing users less content from other people. The Los Angeles trial is testing where that line falls.

The Defense Strategy

Meta and Google aren’t defending their design choices as beneficial. Their defense is that keeping users engaged isn’t the same as making them addicted, that K.G.M.’s mental health problems had multiple causes, and that users still have control over how much time they spend online.

If your platform is deliberately designed using psychology to make users spend hours scrolling, can you call that “the user’s choice”? It’s like saying cigarettes aren’t addictive because people choose to smoke them—technically true, but it misses the point.

Meta’s defense focuses on K.G.M.’s family circumstances, academic pressure, peer relationships—other factors that contributed to her mental health struggles. But product liability law doesn’t require the product to be the only cause of harm. Being a major contributing factor is enough.

What neither company did: defend the internal documents. They didn’t claim the research was wrong or taken out of context. They seem to have accepted that their platforms are highly engaging and potentially addictive, and that they knew this. They’re arguing that knowledge doesn’t automatically create legal responsibility.

The Scale of Pending Litigation

This trial is one case, but it’s being used as a test case—its outcome will likely set the legal standard for hundreds of similar lawsuits.

There are federal lawsuits involving individual plaintiffs, school districts, state attorneys general, and municipalities. A case in New Mexico uses a different legal approach—state consumer protection law instead of product liability. The Meta trial in New Mexico began in February 2026.

School district cases might be easier to win because schools can show clear financial losses from mental health services, counseling, and crisis intervention for students struggling with social media.

If plaintiffs start winning, companies will be more likely to settle the remaining cases rather than risk losing more. If the companies win despite the internal evidence, the remaining lawsuits might slow down.

Why the Law Is Being Reinterpreted Now

The law was written to ensure platforms wouldn’t be sued for false statements users posted—a real problem that needed solving.

But social media platforms in 2026 aren’t neutral spaces where content sits. They’re carefully designed systems where every choice is made to influence how people behave. They employ teams of engineers and data scientists to maximize how long you stay on the platform using algorithms, notifications, and endless scrolling. They hire behavioral psychologists to design features that make the platform harder to put down. They conduct internal research on how their platforms affect users’ mental health.

The business model is about engagement—how much time you spend and how often you come back. This creates incentives to design platforms to be as engaging and habit-forming as possible, especially for younger users whose brains are still developing and are more susceptible to unpredictable rewards.

Courts reviewing evidence that platforms deliberately use psychology to manipulate users while knowing this harms children’s mental health question whether the 1996 law was meant to protect this behavior.

Modern social media platforms aren’t publishers in any traditional sense. They pick what to show each person using secret algorithms. When a platform uses an algorithm to show you the content most likely to keep you scrolling for hours, is it publishing that content or making deliberate design choices that the old law wasn’t written to address?

Courts have increasingly said it’s making design choices, not just publishing content. Not because they’re anti-tech, but because the 1996 law was written for a different kind of internet.

Implications of a Plaintiff Victory

If the jury finds Meta and Google liable for bad design despite the 1996 law, it would be the biggest limit on that law since it was created.

This verdict would affect more than just social media. Any interactive platform—dating apps, gaming platforms, workplace tools, streaming services—could potentially be sued for design choices that cause clear harm. The law would still protect what users post. But companies couldn’t claim their design choices are protected.

For social media companies, a plaintiff victory would likely lead to new government regulations. States might pass laws requiring social media platforms to be designed in ways that protect users’ mental health. Federal legislation like Senator Dick Durbin’s proposal would move forward more easily. It would treat social media platforms as products, so companies could be sued for bad design, failing to warn users of dangers, and causing harm without needing to prove the company was careless.

Companies might completely redesign their platforms. Remove features designed to keep you scrolling. Add stronger privacy protections and tools to limit how much time you can spend. Design to protect users’ mental health instead of keeping them scrolling.

Some worry this would make platforms less profitable, since they make money from ads shown to users who spend lots of time on the platform. Others point to profitable social media platforms in countries that have stricter rules about how platforms can be designed.

What Happens Next

The Los Angeles trial is expected to last about six to eight weeks. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify on February 18, 2026, and Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri on February 11, 2026. The case will proceed through evidence presentation, expert testimony, and closing arguments before the jury deliberates.

Whatever verdict emerges will almost certainly be appealed to a higher court. Higher courts will examine whether the jury’s decision and the judge’s legal decisions were correct. The case could reach the California Supreme Court or even the U.S. Supreme Court if it involves important constitutional or free speech issues.

It remains unclear whether these cases will go to trial and produce jury verdicts, or whether the companies will settle many cases before that happens. Settlements often include secret agreements that keep the details hidden. But the huge number of pending lawsuits suggests at least some cases will go to trial and create legal precedents that future courts must follow.

What Families Need to Know

For families struggling with children’s social media use and mental health, this case is the first major chance for courts to make platforms pay for design choices their own research showed were harmful.

The outcome won’t immediately change how Instagram or YouTube work, because the companies will appeal. Even if plaintiffs win, the companies will ask higher courts to overturn the decision, which will take years. But it would establish that these companies can be sued for design decisions that harm children—something that hasn’t been possible for the past three decades.

When a company’s own researchers compare their product to slot machines and drugs, and document that teens can’t stop using it, that knowledge means they can be sued, not just criticized.

Why This Matters Beyond One Case

The legal questions in this case apply to far more than just Instagram and YouTube. Every digital platform designed to keep users engaged faces similar legal questions. Dating apps that use surprise rewards to keep you coming back. Gaming platforms that use psychology to encourage you to play longer. Streaming services that automatically start the next episode without asking if you want to keep watching.

The fundamental question is whether American law holds digital products to the same safety standards as physical products. If a toy manufacturer designs a product that harms children, they can be sued. If a pharmaceutical company sells an addictive drug without proper warnings, they can be sued. If an automaker builds a car with a defective design that causes injuries, they can be sued.

For three decades, digital platforms have been treated differently under the law. Not because Congress explicitly said they should be exempt, but because a law written to protect early internet companies from being sued for user comments has been interpreted to protect them from almost everything.

That interpretation is changing now. Not through new legislation, but through courts looking at what these companies do and concluding the 1996 law wasn’t written for modern social media platforms.

How Internal Research Changed the Legal Landscape

What makes these cases different from earlier attempts to sue social media companies is the internal documents. Previous lawsuits relied on outside research showing links between social media use and mental health problems. Companies could argue that other factors explained the teen mental health crisis and that their platforms were neutral tools.

Those arguments are harder to make when your own internal research documents how your platform affects users and describes the psychological tricks you’ve built in.

Meta’s internal documents show the company studied how to make Instagram more addictive, compared it to drugs, and chose to keep people scrolling instead of protecting their mental health. That’s a deliberate choice.

The documents show the company researched ways to fix the problem and chose not to use them. Features that would reduce addictive use. Design changes that would help users spend less time on the platform. Warnings about mental health risks. All studied, all rejected, because they would reduce how much time users spend on the platform.

When companies make those choices knowing the consequences, it’s hard to claim users are freely choosing to use the platform.

What Comes After the Verdict

If plaintiffs win, Meta and Google will appeal, arguing the judge made mistakes in allowing the case to proceed. If the companies win, other cases will proceed with different facts, judges, and juries.

But the legal rules are shifting. More courts are distinguishing between content decisions (which the law protects) and design decisions (which the law might not protect). More judges are allowing juries to hear evidence about how platforms are built and what companies knew about the mental health effects.

The question is whether the legal system will require social media companies to care about something other than keeping people scrolling when they design their products. Whether the law will treat deliberately addictive design as a problem, not a feature.

For families dealing with the teen mental health crisis, that question matters because changing what the law allows changes what companies build. And what companies build shapes how millions of young people spend their time and see themselves.

This trial in Los Angeles is testing whether American law will finally require social media platforms to be designed to protect users, not to maximize the time advertisers can reach them.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.