Comparing social media to an addictive chemical like nicotine presents a challenging legal argument. Unlike substances, social media has a significant speech component, and any attempt to regulate it could raise First Amendment concerns.

Bellwether trials for two consolidated cases against some of the world’s largest social media platforms are expected to begin later this year, testing the novel application of legal theories traditionally used in cases against producers of addictive substances like nicotine and opioids.

More than 1,900 individual personal injury, school district, state attorney general, and municipal claims from nearly every state have been merged into multidistrict litigation (MDL) and Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP) cases in California. The courts are expected to hear a subset of these cases—the bellwether trials—before the year’s end.

The primary defendants include the parent companies of platforms with large youth audiences, such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that these platforms are marketed to children and deliberately designed to exploit adolescent brains, which are particularly vulnerable at that stage of development.

Their complaint cites a growing body of research linking frequent social media use to negative mental health outcomes in young people, including an increased risk of suicide, eating disorders, anxiety, and behavioral problems. It also alleges that the companies were aware of these potential harms but failed to take action to mitigate the risks or warn consumers.

Whether these claims will prevail depends on a lengthy discovery process and competing testimony from expert witnesses. However, early rulings in California and other jurisdictions provide insight into how courts may interpret the law.

Legal Challenges and Early Rulings

Claims brought by school districts arguing that social media constitutes a “public nuisance” have seen mixed results. Some state and federal courts have allowed them to proceed, while others have dismissed them. California Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who oversees the JCCP lawsuit, has dismissed public nuisance and product liability claims but has allowed the case to move forward on negligence and failure-to-warn grounds.

In October, Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, moved to dismiss the MDL, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from liability for user-generated content. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the case could proceed, though she found that Section 230 provided the company with partial immunity. Notably, Rogers and Kuhl differ in how they classify social media platforms—as products versus speech-based services—which could have significant legal implications.

First Amendment and Addiction Comparisons

Comparing social media to an addictive chemical like nicotine presents a challenging legal argument. Unlike substances, social media has a significant speech component, and any attempt to regulate it could raise First Amendment concerns.

In late January, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction blocking California’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act from taking effect while an appeal is pending. The panel of judges ruled that some of the plaintiffs’ claims were likely to succeed.

While the MDL bellwether trial was initially scheduled for October 2025, it has since been postponed.