Commentary: Why tech giants shouldn't be liable for creating addictive platforms

Erwin Chemerinsky argues that social media companies should not be held liable for designing addictive platforms, as they are engaged in protected speech.

Published on Feb. 14, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A lawsuit has been filed against tech giants YouTube and Instagram, claiming they designed their platforms to be addictive to children. However, the author argues that this analogy to the tobacco industry fails, as internet and social media companies are engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment. The author cites legal precedents that have rejected attempts to regulate media content, even when it may have harmful effects on minors. While the author acknowledges the negative impacts of social media on children, the solution is not to restrict speech or hold companies liable, but for parents to make more careful choices about their children's use of these platforms.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing legal and ethical debates around regulating social media platforms and their potential harms, especially for children. The outcome could set an important precedent for whether tech companies can be held liable for the addictive design of their products.

The details

A woman, referred to as Kaley G.M., has filed a lawsuit against YouTube and Instagram, claiming they designed their platforms to be addictive to children. This is one of over 2,500 similar lawsuits pending against tech companies. The core argument is that these companies should be held liable on the same theory used against Big Tobacco - that they knowingly created an addictive product. However, the author argues this analogy fails because internet and social media companies are engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment, unlike tobacco products.

  • The trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit began on Monday, February 14, 2026.
  • In 2024, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote an opinion stating that 'The First Amendment … does not go on leave when social media are involved.'

The players

Kaley G.M.

A woman who has filed a lawsuit against YouTube and Instagram, claiming they designed their platforms to be addictive to children.

Erwin Chemerinsky

The dean of the UC Berkeley Law School and the author of this commentary arguing that tech companies should not be held liable for creating addictive platforms.

YouTube

A video-sharing platform owned by Google's parent company, Alphabet Inc.

Instagram

A photo and video-sharing social networking service owned by Meta (formerly Facebook).

TikTok

A short-form video hosting service that previously settled with the plaintiff, Kaley G.M.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The First Amendment … does not go on leave when social media are involved.”

— Elena Kagan, Supreme Court Justice (Supreme Court opinion)

What’s next

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether social media companies can be held liable for creating addictive platforms, as the outcome of this case in the Los Angeles Superior Court could set an important legal precedent.

The takeaway

While the negative impacts of social media on children are concerning, holding tech companies legally liable for the addictive design of their platforms raises significant First Amendment issues. The solution lies in parents making more informed choices about their children's use of these platforms, rather than restricting the companies' right to free speech.