Estimated Time to Read: 12 minutes
Recent jury verdicts in New Mexico and California against major social media platforms have sparked a renewed push for government regulation, including proposals to restrict minors from accessing social media altogether. Supporters of these rulings argue that they represent long-overdue accountability for companies whose products are allegedly harming children.
In Texas, lawmakers who previously supported social media bans are already pointing to these cases as justification for revisiting similar policies, but these verdicts are not just about accountability. They represent a fundamental shift in how courts and policymakers are beginning to think about speech, liability, and the role of government in regulating communication.
At the center of this shift is a simple but dangerous idea that social media is a product that can be regulated like any other consumer good.
If that idea takes hold, the implications will extend far beyond these cases.
Key Takeaways From the Meta and YouTube Verdicts
The recent cases share a common legal theory that is worth examining closely.
In both instances, juries found that design features of social media platforms contributed to harm experienced by minors. These features include algorithmic recommendations, notifications, and infinite scrolling mechanisms that are intended to increase user engagement.
Rather than focusing on specific pieces of content, the cases framed harm as the result of how platforms are structured and how content is delivered. This distinction is what allowed plaintiffs to argue that the issue is not speech itself, but the design of a product. That framing is not accidental. It is an attempt to avoid the constitutional protections that apply to speech and instead to place these platforms within a category of regulated goods.
Policy analysts have warned that this approach could have sweeping consequences. Even relatively narrow rulings can create broad ripple effects, particularly when they introduce new theories of liability that other courts and litigants begin to adopt.
The key takeaway is that these cases are not isolated. They are part of a broader effort to redefine how digital platforms are treated under the law.
Social Media Is Not a Product
The most significant problem with these rulings is that they blur the line between products and speech.
Social media platforms do not manufacture physical goods. They host, organize, and present speech created by users. The features being targeted in these cases are simply tools for distributing that speech.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects not only the content of speech but also the way it is expressed and delivered. Editorial decisions about how information is presented have long been recognized as protected activity.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Source: First Amendment, U.S. Constitution
Calling those decisions “product design” does not change their nature.
If courts allow liability to be imposed based on how engaging or effective speech is, then they are effectively granting the government the authority to regulate expression itself. That is a profound departure from established constitutional principles.
It also raises a practical question. If an app that effectively delivers content can be considered harmful, what standard is left for lawful communication?
Section 230 and Expanding Liability
These cases also signal a growing effort to work around Section 230, which has long protected platforms from liability for user-generated content.
By shifting the focus from content to design, plaintiffs are attempting to impose liability without directly challenging Section 230. This strategy allows courts to sidestep one of the foundational legal protections that has enabled the modern internet to function.
The concern is that even limited liability in these cases could open the door to a much broader wave of litigation. Once a legal theory is established, it rarely remains confined to its original context. Companies across a wide range of industries could find themselves facing similar claims. Any product or service that captures attention or encourages repeated use could be framed as addictive or harmful.
The result is a legal environment where innovation carries increased risk and where businesses must constantly defend themselves against expansive liability claims.
Texas Social Media Policy and the Push for Regulation
For Texas, the timing of these verdicts is significant.
Lawmakers have already debated proposals to restrict minors from accessing social media, including HB 186, which would have prohibited minors from using social media platforms altogether.
Texas Policy Research (TPR) opposed that legislation, noting in its analysis that the proposal would expand government authority, raise significant First Amendment concerns, and shift decision-making power away from parents and toward centralized regulation, while imposing broad compliance burdens on private platforms.
However, building policy on these verdicts would be a mistake.
Texas has long promoted itself as a state committed to free enterprise, limited government, and individual liberty. Expanding liability for speech-based platforms runs counter to those principles and risks creating a regulatory framework that is both intrusive and difficult to unwind.
Policies such as mandatory age verification would require platforms to collect and store sensitive personal data, creating new risks related to privacy, data security, and government overreach. It also establishes a precedent for broader forms of surveillance that may extend well beyond the original intent.
This includes legislation like the App Store Accountability Act, which reflects a growing trend toward requiring platforms and intermediaries to verify identity and regulate access to digital content.
Texas Legislation Reflects a Broader Regulatory Trend
These legal developments are not occurring in a vacuum. They are unfolding alongside a broader push by lawmakers to regulate how minors interact with digital platforms.
During the 89th Legislative Session (2025), Texas lawmakers passed the App Store Accountability Act, a sweeping proposal that requires app stores to verify user ages, categorize users by age group, and obtain parental consent before minors can download or purchase applications.
While framed as a consumer protection measure, the law imposes significant compliance burdens on private companies and requires the collection and handling of sensitive personal data to function. It also establishes a framework that places intermediaries at the center of regulating access to digital content.
Texas Policy Research opposed this legislation for many of the same reasons raised in the context of the recent social media verdicts. Expanding liability and regulatory obligations for platforms, even indirectly, risks creating a system where access to speech is filtered through compliance regimes rather than individual choice.
This approach is not unique to Texas. Similar proposals are being considered across the country, reflecting a growing willingness among policymakers to intervene in how digital platforms operate, particularly when minors are involved.
That broader trend makes the implications of the recent court cases even more significant. They do not stand alone. They reinforce and accelerate an existing policy movement toward increased regulation of digital expression.
Rebutting Claims That Social Media Regulation Protects Children
Supporters of increased regulation often point to a growing body of research arguing that social media is not merely distracting, but actively harmful to children’s mental and emotional development. Some have gone further, describing these platforms as addictive systems that rewire the brain, erode attention spans, and undermine the development of self-control and social skills.
This argument has been advanced by policy organizations such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), which has warned that excessive social media use contributes to anxiety, depression, diminished academic performance, and a broader decline in civic and intellectual development among young people.
These concerns should not be dismissed.
There is legitimate evidence that excessive screen time, constant notifications, and algorithm-driven content can shape behavior, particularly among adolescents. The modern digital environment is different from anything previous generations experienced, and parents across the country are right to take those changes seriously.
But acknowledging harm is not the same as justifying government control.
The policy leap from “this may be harmful” to “the state must regulate or restrict access” is where this argument breaks down.
First, the analogy to addictive substances like tobacco or alcohol remains flawed. Those products have inherent chemical properties that produce consistent physiological effects. Social media does not. It is a medium through which speech is communicated. Its effects vary widely depending on the user, the content, and the context.
Second, even if certain platform features are designed to increase engagement, that does not remove them from First Amendment protection. Newspapers are designed to be read. Television programs are designed to retain viewers. Books are written to be compelling. The fact that something is engaging does not make it regulatable in the same way as a physical product.
Third, framing the issue as one of “design” rather than speech does not solve the constitutional problem. The way content is curated, presented, and delivered is inseparable from the expression itself. Regulating those mechanisms is functionally equivalent to regulating speech.
Fourth, and most importantly, these arguments shift responsibility away from where it ultimately belongs.
Parents, not platforms or policymakers, are best positioned to determine what their children should be exposed to and how they should engage with technology. While that responsibility has become more complex in a digital age, replacing it with top-down regulation does not address the root issue. It simply transfers decision-making authority from families to institutions.
There is also a practical concern that often goes unaddressed.
If courts and legislatures begin treating engagement as evidence of harm, then any product or service that captures attention could become a target. Video games, streaming services, news media, and even educational platforms could face similar scrutiny.
That is not a narrow regulatory framework. It is an open-ended invitation for expanding liability across nearly every form of modern communication.
Finally, there is the question of unintended consequences.
If platforms are held liable for how users engage with content, they will respond by reducing risk. That means more aggressive censorship, more restrictive content policies, and increased monitoring of user behavior. It also creates pressure for identity verification systems that undermine anonymity and privacy.
In attempting to protect children, these policies risk creating a digital environment that is more controlled, more surveilled, and less open to free expression. The concerns raised by critics of social media are real. But the solutions being proposed do not simply address those concerns. They fundamentally alter the relationship between individuals, families, and the state.
That is a tradeoff that deserves far more scrutiny than it is currently receiving.
From Lawsuits to Censorship
The long-term effects of these verdicts extend beyond legal theory and into the practical operation of online platforms.
If companies face liability for how users engage with content, they will take steps to minimize that risk. This will likely include more aggressive content moderation, reduced visibility for controversial topics, and increased monitoring of user behavior. These changes may be framed as safety measures, but they come at the cost of free expression.
There is also a strong incentive to implement age verification systems and other forms of identity tracking. These systems erode anonymity and create new avenues for data collection and misuse.
Larger companies may be able to absorb these changes, but smaller platforms will struggle, leading to greater consolidation and less competition in the digital marketplace.
Free Speech as a Texas Priority
These concerns are not theoretical. They are central to how TPR evaluates legislation and public policy.
As part of the TPR’s Texas Liberty Compact, protecting free speech and digital expression is identified as a core legislative priority. The principle is straightforward. Technological change must not become a pretext for indirect censorship or expanded government control over communication.
Digital speech is speech. The constitutional protections that apply offline do not disappear simply because communication occurs through a screen. Efforts to regulate platforms through liability, design mandates, or access restrictions risk creating a system where lawful expression is constrained not by clear constitutional limits, but by the fear of litigation and regulatory enforcement.
That is inconsistent with a framework grounded in individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited government.
Conclusion on Social Media Verdicts and Texas Policy
The recent verdicts against social media companies are being celebrated as a step toward accountability, but they carry consequences that extend far beyond the cases themselves.
By treating speech as a product, these rulings open the door to expanded liability, increased regulation, and greater government involvement in how information is shared and consumed.
For Texas, the path forward should be grounded in the principles that have long defined the state’s approach to policy. That means protecting free speech, limiting government overreach, and preserving the role of parents in raising their children. The challenges posed by social media are real, but the solutions being proposed risk undermining the very freedoms they claim to protect.
If these legal theories continue to gain traction, the result will not be a safer internet.
It will be a more controlled one.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
