The Original article appears at https://www.scopeweekly.com/2026/04/recent-jury-verdicts-and-the-need-to-regulate-facebook-says-author-gini-graham-scott
Here’s an article I wrote that was featured in Scope Weekly News Magazine Apr 28, 2026
Recent jury verdicts against Meta and YouTube are a sign it’s time to regulate Facebook because of all the harm it is doing. These verdicts have done more than awarding damages; they are reshaping the national conversation about social media accountability.
Following a major judgment in New Mexico, a California verdict has made it increasingly urgent to take some action because the way that platforms like Facebook and Instagram are designed may be fundamentally unsafe, particularly for young users. Together, these cases point to a clear conclusion that federal regulation is necessary.
However, these legal developments are just part of the remedy, since court decisions in the U.S. by themselves rarely drive systemic reform. Instead, public pressure, especially when directed toward lawmakers, often transforms isolated rulings into lasting policy. That is where a coordinated letter-writing campaign to Congress can play a pivotal role, and one such campaign has just been launched. But first let me describe the recent court rulings.
A Big Decision in California
One jury verdict occurred in Los Angeles County Superior Court, when a jury recently found that Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube were negligently designed in ways that contributed to the addiction and mental health struggles of a young user identified as K.G.M., or Kaley. What made this case particularly significant was not just the outcome, but the reasoning behind the decision.
Jurors concluded that the harm did not stem solely from user-generated content. Instead, it arose from the platforms’ core design features, which included algorithmic feeds engineered to maximize engagement, infinite scrolling mechanisms that eliminated natural stopping points, persistent notifications, and recommendation systems that continuously pushed tailored content. These features, the jury determined, were intentionally structured to capture attention and keep users, especially young ones, engaged for as long as possible.
The financial consequences reflected the seriousness of that finding. The jury awarded $4.2 million in damages against Meta and $1.8 million against YouTube. While both companies have announced plans to appeal, the broader impact of the verdict is already clear. Legal experts are describing it as a bellwether case, since it could influence thousands of similar lawsuits currently in courts across the country.
An Even Bigger Decision in from New Mexico
The California decision was just one of two recent verdicts against Facebook. Just one day before the California verdict, a New Mexico jury delivered an even more striking judgment. In that case, Meta was ordered to pay approximately $375 million in damages after being found liable under the state’s Unfair Practices Act.
In their case, prosecutors contended that Meta had deliberately placed profit and user engagement above the safety of children. Evidence presented in court suggested that the company was aware of risks related to youth mental health and exposure to harmful actors, including online predators, yet it failed to implement adequate safeguards. Instead, it continued to refine systems designed to maximize time spent on its platforms.
Although Meta has also pledged to appeal this decision, the verdict stands as a powerful public acknowledgment of harm. It reinforces a case against Facebook and Meta that has been building for years, a case supported by parents, educators, and state officials, that social media platforms are not merely passive hosts of content but active participants in shaping the behavior of their users.
Why These Cases Are Important
These cases are like a watershed marking a change in the social media landscape. For years, companies like Meta relied on legal protections such as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to shield themselves from liability. Their central argument has remained the same over the years: they are not responsible for harmful content because users create that content.
The recent verdicts fundamentally challenge that premise by shifting the focus from the content in the social media to the design of these platforms. By recognizing “defective design” and addictive architecture as contributing factors to harm, these cases create a new form of accountability based on how platforms are built, not just what appears on them.
The evidence presented during the California trial supported this responsibility for design, since the prosecutors included internal documents and testimony that suggested that the executives and engineers understood the psychological effects of their products, particularly on younger users. Yet despite having this knowledge, the executives and engineers continued to design the platforms to optimize for growth, engagement, and revenue.
This distinction between offering content and creating the platform design is critical. If harm can be traced to intentional design choices rather than unpredictable user behavior, then the legal and regulatory landscape changes dramatically. It becomes harder to argue that platforms are simply neutral services offering up the content provided by users.
Still Other Harms by Facebook
While these headline cases have drawn national attention to the design features of these social media platforms, they represent only a fraction of a much larger wave of litigation, especially against Facebook. Across the United States, thousands of lawsuits have been filed by families, school districts, and state governments which link Facebook and other social media to rising rates of anxiety, depression, body image issues, self-harm, and suicidal ideation among young people.
At the same time, concerns about Facebook extend beyond youth mental health. Users have reported a wide range of issues that point to deeper problems in how the platform operates. These include the flawed selfie identity verification system that mistakenly locks users out of their accounts, algorithmic programs that wrongfully terminate accounts without meaningful avenues for appeal, and advertising systems that reject campaigns but keep the money advertisers have paid. Many users also describe being overwhelmed with a large number of ads in their daily news feed, so they are deluged with content that is not connected with their interests.
Taken together, all of these problems suggest a platform that is not only potentially harmful in its design, but also unreliable and unaccountable in its day-to-day functioning.
The Limits of Litigation
Despite the significance of the recent verdicts in California and New Mexico, lawsuits alone are not enough to address these problems and obtain a remedy. Litigation is inherently slow, often taking years to resolve. Appeals can extend that timeline even further, particularly when large corporations have the resources to contest unfavorable rulings indefinitely.
Another problem with litigation only is that court decisions are typically narrow in scope. They address specific cases rather than establishing comprehensive standards for an entire industry. Even when plaintiffs succeed, the impact is often limited to financial compensation rather than systemic change.
This is why federal action is essential. Only Congress and federal regulators have the authority to establish clear, enforceable rules that apply to all platforms. For example, new laws could include age-appropriate design standards, restrictions on features that promote compulsive use among minors, requirements for independent safety audits, and meaningful penalties for companies that fail to protect users. These laws could also regulate the tools that users employ to verify their identities and provide an adequate process for a quick appeal in the event a user wrongly loses an account or has an ad rejected. Without such measures, Facebook and other social media platforms can remain unaccountable, and the harms can continue to affect individual uses and society as a whole.
The Power of Public Pressure
Government regulation is needed, because historically, major regulatory shifts in the United States have been driven not just by evidence presented in litigation, but by public demand. Lawmakers are far more likely to act when they hear directly from constituents who are informed, engaged, and persistent.
This is where a letter-writing campaign can make a tangible difference. Such a coordinated outreach to members of Congress can be one of the most effective ways to influence legislative priorities. When offices receive a steady stream of letters on a specific issue, it signals that the issue matters to voters.
In turn, recent verdicts can provide a compelling foundation for such outreach. They offer concrete examples of harm, backed by legal findings and evidence presented in court. They also demonstrate that concerns about platform design are not speculative, since they have been recognized by juries as real and consequential.
Building an Effective Campaign
Such a successful letter-writing campaign has a few key characteristics, which are recommended by a recently launched campaign against Facebook, which is described in the recently published book: The Facebook Problem – and How to Fix It by Gini Graham Scott, PhD, a sociologist and author of several hundred books. As the book describes, so readers can easily send their own letters, such letters should be concise and focused. They should clearly state the issue and the action requested and reference specific developments, such as the California and New Mexico verdicts, to provide support for their argument for regulation.
Then, too, the letters might include personal or community experiences to illustrate why the issue matters in everyday life. Plus it helps when there are multiple letters from many constituents to create momentum, because when lawmakers hear the same concerns repeatedly from different voices and perspectives, it becomes much harder to ignore.
It is also important to target such letters to the members of key committees overseeing technology, commerce, consumer protection, and the judiciary, since these are the lawmakers most directly involved in shaping policy for companies like Meta.
As “The Facebook Problem – and How to Fix It” also points out, a letter-writing campaign can serve as the bridge between awareness and action by transforming concern into a clear, collective message: that the current system is not working, and that change is both necessary and urgent.
The book even provides some suggestions in how to write a letter along with a sample readers can adapt and send.
Summing Up
In sum, the convergence of major jury verdicts, mounting lawsuits, and widespread public concern has created a surge of interest in regulating social media, since the evidence is stronger than ever, the legal arguments provide verdicts favoring regulation, and the human impact is increasingly visible.
In turn, such government regulation of social media platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, is not about limiting innovation or restricting speech. Rather, it is about establishing basic standards of safety and accountability in an environment that has become central to modern life. The recent cases have made it clear that leaving these issues unresolved carries real costs, measured not just in dollars but in the well-being of individuals and communities. As the book argues, a coordinated effort to bring these concerns directly to Congress could help ensure that those human costs of social media are no longer ignored.
About the Author:
Gini Graham Scott, Ph.D., J.D., is a nationally known writer, consultant, and speaker, specializing in business and work relationships, self-help, professional and personal development, social trends, science, and crime. She has published over 50 books with major publishers and 250 books through her company, Changemakers Publishing.
She is also a game designer who has published over 150 games with major game companies, including 120 games in books and audiobooks by ALB Games. Recent games are card, communication, and party games on relationships, success, mental health, travel, scams, crime, and AI.
Gini additionally writes film scripts and has produced 20 feature films and documentaries in distribution on social issues. mental health, AI, scams, and other topics. Film trailers are at changemakersproductionsfilms.com.
Purchase The Facebook Problem… And How to Fix It: Jury Verdicts, the Campaign Against Facebook, and Writing to Congress, the book on Amazon.
Buy Now
