Is this a tipping point?
The verdict that could change social media
How do we know when we’re at a tipping point?
It’s a question we’ve been circling in this newsletter for years:
In February 2024, during the congressional hearings on online child safety, we asked: “Is this a breaking point or tipping point?”
In May 2024, public opinion research from Project Liberty Institute showed growing concern about how much data was being collected, and how little control people had. We wondered if shifting public sentiment would be enough.
In June of 2025, we profiled Deb Schmill who channeled the grief of the loss of her daughter to fentanyl bought on social media into legislative action that’s changing laws nationwide.
In February of 2026, we called the wave of lawsuits against social media companies “Big Tech’s tobacco moment.”
Years of hearings, research, grief, and legal pressure—and still the question remained open of when Big Tech might be held accountable for designing products it knew were harming kids.
Last week, a California jury might have answered it. It found Meta and YouTube legally liable for harming a young woman through addictive product design—the first verdict of its kind. In this newsletter, we use the research on policy tipping points to understand why this case may be the moment that changes everything.
A bellwether case, a landmark ruling
Last week, a jury in Los Angeles found Meta and YouTube liable for designing products that addicted and then harmed a young user, identified by her initials, KGM.
The seven-week jury trial included testimony from Mark Zuckerberg and other executives.
KGM testified that she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine. By age 10, she was suffering from depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts.
The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and, finding the companies had acted with malice, an additional $3 million in punitive damages.
While this was the first lawsuit against a tech giant to reach a jury trial on social media addiction, it is also one of several bellwether trials whose outcomes could shape how thousands of similar lawsuits—from families, school districts, and state attorneys general—are likely to play out.
A similar, but separate, case also reached a verdict last week. A jury in New Mexico found that Meta misled users about the safety of its platforms, enabling the sexual exploitation of young users. Meta will pay $375 million for violating the state’s consumer protection laws.
The verdicts in California and New Mexico are the product of years of sustained legal pressure, much of it driven by the Social Media Victims Law Center (SMVLC). Founded in 2021 by Matthew Bergman, a product liability attorney who spent decades representing asbestos victims, SMVLC applied a proven logic: Hold companies accountable for knowingly dangerous product design. That meant targeting platform design rather than content, a strategy that sidesteps Section 230’s protections.
SMVLC’s Laura Marquez-Garrett was counsel of record for KGM. After the verdict, the lawyers called it “a historic moment” for thousands of children and families: “A referendum, from a jury to an entire industry, that accountability has arrived.”
Research on policy tipping points
In 1984, John Kingdon, a political science professor at the University of Michigan, published a book, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, on how issues get on lawmakers’ agendas and how some ideas succeed in becoming policy and others don’t—in essence, what leads to policy tipping points.
Kingdon concludes that policy change can occur when three “streams of influence” converge in a policy window.
The Problem Stream refers to the cultural conditions—public awareness, data, media attention, crises—that define an issue and compel government action. For social media, this has meant personal stories of harmed teens, mounting public opinion data, and books like The Anxious Generation.
The Policy Stream is what Kingdon calls the “primeval soup”—where ideas float, evolve, and either die or become law. For social media policy, most of this activity has played out at the state level. In December 2025, New York enacted legislation requiring warning labels on addictive social media platforms—a bill backed by Common Sense Media. They are far from alone: over 45 states now have social media safety legislation pending.
The Politics Stream refers to the broader political climate—elections, shifts in administration, interest group pressure—and whether conditions are right to turn ideas into law. On social media safety, bipartisan support has held for years. Organizations like ParentsTogether, HEAT, and MAMA have turned millions of parents into an organized political force, sustaining the pressure on lawmakers and platforms that made accountability efforts like the Los Angeles trial possible.
What makes KGM v. Meta different
There are four reasons why KGM v. Meta et al. is different and could be an important part of the primeval soup of legal precedents.
It was a jury trial. The case is the first major social media addiction trial that wasn’t settled or resolved on motions. Instead, a jury of one’s peers found Meta and YouTube liable (TikTok and Snap both settled).
It used a novel legal approach that offered a route around the immunity tech companies have enjoyed from Section 230. Tech companies have relied on Section 230 to shield themselves from liability. But KGM v. Meta et al. used product liability—claiming that the products’ design can cause personal injury. The effectiveness of this approach could pave the way for similar ways to hold tech companies accountable.
It was the first in a series of test cases. The verdict could shape the outcome of thousands of pending lawsuits from families, school districts, and state attorneys general against social media companies.
It was a victory that was years in the making. A wide coalition of organizations, activists, parents, and young people worked together to bring the case with the greatest chance at winning. It showed that a victory was possible.
Are we at a tipping point?
Tipping points are visible in hindsight, and Kingdon’s framework suggests it takes more than one lawsuit or one law to usher in an era of accountability. But a jury verdict that pierced Section 230, a novel legal strategy now validated, and tens of thousands of lawsuits waiting all indicate that the three streams are converging in ways they haven’t before.
And those streams aren’t just converging to regulate social media. They could be converging for AI regulation as well. As this Substack article from Fathom explains, there is growing momentum in the problem, policy, and politics streams around AI chatbots (see public concerns about deepfakes, lawsuits against Character.ai, and legislation in states across the U.S.).
Of note, all organizations featured in this newsletter are members of the Project Liberty Alliance, a global coalition of civic organizations, advocates, and institutions working toward a better digital future that puts humanity in the center.
Project Liberty updates
// Responsible AI: The VC perspective
A report from Reframe Venture, in collaboration with Project Liberty Institute and ImpactVC, found that nine in ten VCs see financial opportunity in a responsible AI stack. Read the report here.
Other notable headlines
// 🤳Why OpenAI killed Sora: too much compute, too much competition, and skeptical investors, according to an article in The Verge. (Paywall).
// 🏛️ An article in The Guardian reported on the week big tech was brought to heel. The ruling that Meta and YouTube deliberately designed addictive products marks a possible watershed moment for social media. (Free).
// 🌐 Wikipedia banned AI-generated content, according to an article in 404 Media. (Free).
// 🇨🇳 China is winning the AI talent race, and its lead over the West is only set to widen, according to an article in The Economist. (Paywall).
// 🤔 An article in The New Yorker asked, does AI need a constitution? A new set of precepts is meant to make the chatbot Claude wise, decent, and safe. It also marks a striking transfer of public responsibility from constitutional government to private tech firms. (Paywall).
// 🤖 Research from Stanford, which was published in a report in Nature, found that sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence. (Free).
// 🇮🇩 Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in the world bans most social media for kids. An article in Gizmodo suggested that it’s likely the most consequential ban of its kind so far. (Free).
// 🇦🇺 Australia has found that keeping teens off social media isn’t so simple. An article in Bloomberg highlighted how easy it is to dodge. (Paywall).
Partner news
// “The AI Doc” sparks urgent conversation on our AI future
Released in Theaters Friday, March 28
The Center for Humane Technology has released “The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist,” a new film designed to make the complexities of AI more accessible and actionable for the public. Find a screening near you.
// Agentic AI and Cybersecurity: Navigating Emerging Risks
April 3 | 12:20-1:20 PM ET | Virtual
The Berkman Klein Center is convening leading experts for a discussion on how agentic AI is reshaping cybersecurity, from shifting the offense-defense balance to introducing new governance and liability challenges. Register here.
// ReThink Citizens Youth Coalition Showcase
April 16, 2026 | 6-7 PM ET | Virtual
ReThink Citizens will host its Youth Coalition Showcase, highlighting capstone projects from young innovators tackling issues in AI, online safety, and digital wellbeing. Register here.
This has me thinking about the issues or the phenomenon of scale – and all the work we've had to do as humans to handle the digital deluge. What a 25 years it's been. What does our relationship with scale have to do with what's next?