The Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) of 1998 imposed massive financial penalties on cigarette companies and sharply restricted their marketing and advertising. It was the culmination of years of work by state attorneys general, private law firms, and public health groups. By then—and for decades prior—no one could plausibly claim ignorance about the dangers of cigarette smoking.
The MSA was a watershed moment for public health organizations and their attorneys. It created not only a legal template but a business model. Ever since, many in public health and the legal profession have been searching for their next “tobacco.” Various industries have been targeted, but none combines the scientific certainty and documented corporate misconduct that defined the cigarette cases. Still, when a business model proves lucrative, it is hard to resist looking for new markets. Private law firms alone are estimated to have collected $12–$15 billion from the MSA.
That is why the recent lawsuit and verdict against Meta and Google did not surprise me. Disappointed, yes—but not surprised. With a combined market capitalization in the $5–$6 trillion range, social media companies were simply too tempting to leave alone. In K.G.M. v. Meta et al., a young woman claimed that using Instagram and YouTube as a child caused her serious mental harm. The jury ultimately embraced a novel legal theory: that Instagram and YouTube are “defective products” because they were designed to encourage compulsive use.
Traditionally, defective product lawsuits involve genuine failures in design—faulty appliances, unsafe toys, or poorly engineered automobiles that physically endanger users. YouTube and Instagram do not explode, ignite, or poison anyone. The alleged defect is that users enjoy them too much.
Warnings that new forms of mass media will corrupt the young or destroy society are hardly new. In the early 20th century, the education establishment, parent groups, religious organizations and assorted social critics sounded the alarm about intellectual development, mental effects, and a decline in moral and cultural standards. That alarm was sounded over radio. Naturally, it was repeated 40 years later when television became the mass media standard.
Go back further and the pattern continues. In Shakespeare’s time, church authorities condemned theatrical performances as immoral and corrupting. Parliament went so far as to ban public plays in 1642 and later declared actors to be rogues subject to arrest. Mark Zuckerberg, beware!
Even before Shakespeare, the arrival of the printing press sparked anxiety. When Johannes Gutenberg brought the written word to the masses, governments and the church sought control, and intellectuals like Erasmus fretted about information overload and declining scholarly standards. One can almost hear a nobleman lamenting that peasants would spend their days reading instead of toiling in the fields, thereby imperiling civilization.
Today’s version of this recurring fear is that social media—not books, radio, television, or theater—will bring about societal ruin.
Meta and Google are appealing the ruling, and the case may drag on for years. It is widely viewed as a bellwether. Thousands of similar lawsuits have already been filed, including by hundreds of school districts and 30 states. The tobacco model is being applied to some of our most successful and innovative companies because… people like their products too much.
I’ll admit it: I enjoy when YouTube recommends videos I might like. Call me a modern-day heretic, but I appreciate the algorithm. It reminds me of my elementary school librarian, who always seemed to know exactly which books would capture my interest.
Of course, too much of anything is unhealthy. But at some point, adults must take responsibility for moderating their own behavior. And parents must teach their children the same lesson. According to the verdict in K.G.M. v. Meta et al., that responsibility now shifts to the courts. Excess is never wise, but that does not mean every source of excess warrants a lawsuit—especially one built on a novel legal theory that could constrain some of America’s most valuable companies.
We already have a precedent for addressing concerns about mass media. In the 1960s and again in the 1990s, Congress enacted laws to regulate potential harms from television. Today, lawmakers are considering various proposals to address social media. But those earlier debates occurred before the MSA created a litigation model that promises enormous payouts for trial lawyers, states, and anyone else seeking a payday.
We should address concerns about youth and social media through thoughtful policy—not through lawsuits designed to turn innovation into the next tobacco.
