Tech Giants Avoid Liability for Addictive Platforms

Courts rule social media is protected speech, unlike tobacco products.

Published on Feb. 18, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A lawsuit alleging that tech giants like YouTube and Instagram designed their platforms to be addictive for children has been rejected by the courts. Legal experts argue that social media is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, unlike tobacco products, and therefore cannot be held liable for creating addictive environments.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing debate over regulating social media and tech companies, with courts so far ruling that their platforms are a form of speech that cannot be restricted. It raises questions about how to address the real harms of social media addiction, especially for minors, without infringing on free expression rights.

The details

The lawsuit was brought by a woman referred to as Kaley G.M. against YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, claiming the platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive for children. However, legal experts argue that unlike tobacco products, social media and internet companies are engaged in protected speech that cannot be restricted, even if the content is deemed harmful. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that minors are entitled to First Amendment protections, and the government faces a high bar in proving direct causation between online content and real-world harms.

  • The lawsuit against the tech giants began last week in Los Angeles Superior Court.
  • In 2024, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote that 'The First Amendment … does not go on leave when social media are involved.'

The players

Erwin Chemerinsky

The dean of the UC Berkeley Law School and an expert on constitutional law who argues that social media companies cannot be held liable for creating addictive platforms, as they are engaged in protected speech.

Kaley G.M.

A woman who filed a lawsuit against YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, claiming the platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive for children.

Justice Elena Kagan

A Supreme Court justice who wrote in a 2024 opinion that the First Amendment protections apply to social media.

Justice Antonin Scalia

A former Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in the 2012 case Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which rejected the argument that violent video games could be restricted due to their harmful effects on minors.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

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

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

“Minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them.”

— Justice Antonin Scalia, Former Supreme Court Justice (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2012)

What’s next

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether social media companies can be held liable for creating addictive platforms, as the lower court rulings have so far protected their speech rights.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tension between protecting children from the harms of social media addiction and preserving free speech rights. While tech companies should exercise more care in content directed at minors, the courts have so far ruled that their platforms are a form of protected expression that cannot be restricted, unlike more tangible products like tobacco.