The fines levied against Meta and Google for using algorithms designed to create addiction pave the way for unavoidable regulation.

For years, Silicon Valley has relied on laws that exempt companies from liability for user-generated content, arguing that technology is neutral and that algorithms are solely designed to enhance the user experience. This week, however, a Los Angeles jury found that apps from two tech giants, Meta and Google, are addictive, expressly designed to keep users hooked, and that their owners have been negligent in protecting the children and teenagers who use them. In a separate case in New Mexico, a jury found Meta—the parent company of Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram—convicted of failing to prevent child sexual exploitation on its platforms.

These are two unprecedented rulings—with global implications—that hold companies responsible for harm caused by their design choices, rather than the content they host. The Los Angeles ruling states that the navigation techniques social media companies use to attract users—such as endless scrolling , algorithmic recommendations, autoplay videos, and beauty filters—make it impossible to set clear limits on usage time and foster addictive behaviors that particularly affect minors. This is the basis of their liability.

After years of concern from parents and authorities, tech companies have finally implemented tools, primarily aimed at parents, to protect minors and restrict access to certain content. The courts have just ruled that these measures are clearly insufficient. The Los Angeles verdict sides with countries like Australia, France, Denmark, and Spain, which want to prohibit access to these applications for those under 16. The growing use of social media over the last decade and a half has coincided with an exponential increase in levels of depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses among minors. And despite the difficulty in establishing a direct link between these two phenomena, evidence is mounting against a digital ecosystem that amplifies vulnerabilities during a particularly sensitive stage of development.

The financial repercussions of these cases are minor for companies with billions in profits. The Los Angeles ruling orders Meta and Google to pay the plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages each; the New Mexico ruling requires Mark Zuckerberg's company to pay $375 million. In 2025, Meta achieved a net profit of $60.458 billion; Google's was $132.172 billion. However, both verdicts could set the stage for the more than 3,000 lawsuits from individuals and families that are still pending in the courts. In fact, the platforms TikTok and Snap reached an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs to avoid a legal battle.

History is replete with multimillion-dollar judgments against companies that have survived hefty fines and continued doing business as if nothing had happened. But there is also a long list of companies and sectors forced to change the composition of their products after a wave of adverse rulings, and whose public perception changes radically after the evidence presented in those trials. This happened with the tobacco companies, and we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of the era of social media as we know it—that is, with impunity.

El Pais, Spain