 |
|
|
|||||
For years, social media companies have disputed allegations that they harm children’s mental health through deliberate design choices that addict kids to their platforms and fail to protect them from sexual predators and dangerous content. Now, these tech giants are getting a chance to make their case in courtrooms around the country, including before a jury for the first time.Some of the biggest players from Meta to TikTok are facing federal and state trials that seek to hold them responsible for harming children’s mental health. The lawsuits have come from school districts, local, state and the federal government as well as thousands of families.Two trials are now underway in Los Angeles and in New Mexico, with more to come. The courtroom showdowns are the culmination of years of scrutiny of the platforms over child safety, and whether deliberate design choices make them addictive and serve up content that leads to depression, eating disorders or suicide.Experts see the reckoning as reminiscent of cases against tobacco and opioid markets, and the plaintiffs hope that social media platforms will see similar outcomes as cigarette makers and drug companies, pharmacies and distributors.The outcomes could challenge the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms. They could also be costly in the form of legal fees and settlements. And they could force the companies to change how they operate, potentially losing users and advertising dollars.Here’s a look at the major social media harms cases in the United States. The Los Angeles case centers on addiction Jurors in a landmark social media case that seeks to hold tech companies responsible for harms to children got their first glimpse into what will be a lengthy trial characterized by dueling narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining defendants, Meta and YouTube.At the core of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of similar lawsuits will play out. KGM and the cases of two other plaintiffs have been selected to be bellwether trials essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury.“This is a monumental inflection point in social media,” said Matthew Bergman of the Seattle-based Social Media Victims Law Center, which represents more than 1,000 plaintiffs in lawsuits against social media companies. “When we started doing this four years ago no one said we’d ever get to trial. And here we are trying our case in front of a fair and impartial jury.”On Wednesday Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified, mostly sticking to past talking points, including a lengthy back-and-forth about age verification where he said “I don’t see why this is so complicated,” reiterating that the company’s policy restricts users under the age of 13 and that it works to detect users who have lied about their ages to bypass restrictions.At one point, the plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, asked Zuckerberg if people tend to use something more if it’s addictive.“I’m not sure what to say to that,” Zuckerberg said. “I don’t think that applies here.” New Mexico goes after Meta over sexual exploitation A team led by New Mexico Attorney General Raśl Torrez, who sued Meta in 2023, built their case by posing as children on social media, then documenting sexual solicitations they received as well as Meta’s response.Torrez wants Meta to implement more effective age verification and do more to remove bad actors from its platform.He also is seeking changes to algorithms that can serve up harmful material, and has criticized the end-to-end encryption that can prevent the monitoring of communications with children for safety. Meta has noted that encrypted messaging is encouraged in general as a privacy and security measure by some state and federal authorities.The trial kicked off in early February. In his opening statement, prosecuting attorney Donald Migliori said Meta has misrepresented the safety of its platforms, choosing to engineer its algorithms to keep young people online while knowing that children are at risk of sexual exploitation.“Meta clearly knew that youth safety was not its corporate priority that youth safety was less important than growth and engagement,” Migliori told the jury.Meta attorney Kevin Huff pushed back on those assertions in his opening statement, highlighting an array of efforts by the company to weed out harmful content from its platforms while warning users that some dangerous content still gets past its safety net. School districts head to trial A trial scheduled for this summer pits school districts against social media companies before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California. Called a multidistrict litigation, it names six public school districts from around the country as the bellwethers.Jayne Conroy, a lawyer on plaintiffs’ trial team, was also an attorney for plaintiffs seeking to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for the opioid epidemic. She said the cornerstone of both cases is the same: addiction.“With the social media case, we’re focused primarily on children and their developing brains and how addiction is such a threat to their well-being and the harms that are caused to children how much they’re watching and what kind of targeting is being done,” she said.The medical science, she added, “is not really all that different, surprisingly, from an opioid or a heroin addiction. We are all talking about the dopamine reaction.”Both the social media and the opioid cases claim negligence on the part of the defendants.“What we were able to prove in the opioid cases is the manufacturers, the distributors, the pharmacies, they knew about the risks, they downplayed them, they oversupplied, and people died,” Conroy said. “Here, it is very much the same thing. These companies knew about the risks, they have disregarded the risks, they doubled down to get profits from advertisers over the safety of kids. And kids were harmed and kids died.” Resolution could take years amid dueling narratives Social media companies have disputed that their products are addictive. During questioning Wednesday by the plaintiff’s lawyer during the Los Angeles trial, Zuckerberg said he still agrees with a previous statement he made that the existing body of scientific work has not proven that social media causes mental health harms.Some researchers do indeed question whether addiction is the appropriate term to describe heavy use of social media. Socil media addiction is not recognized as an official disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the authority within the psychiatric community.But the companies face increasing pushback on the issue of social media’s effects on children’s mental health, not only among academics but also parents, schools and lawmakers.“While Meta has doubled down in this area to address mounting concerns by rolling out safety features, several recent reports suggest that the company continues to aggressively prioritize teens as a user base and doesn’t always adhere to its own rules,” said Emarketer analyst Minda Smiley.With appeals and any settlement discussions, the cases against social media companies could take years to resolve. And unlike in Europe and Australia, tech regulation in the U.S. is moving at a glacial pace.“Parents, education, and other stakeholders are increasingly hoping lawmakers will do more,” Smiley said. “While there is momentum at the state and federal level, Big Tech lobbying, enforcement challenges, and lawmaker disagreements over how to best regular social media have slowed meaningful progress.”AP Technology Writer Kaitlyn Huamani contributed to this story. Barbara Ortutay, AP Technology Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
This year has been volatile for brands. With tariffs taking effect, the job market slowing, and consumer spending barely keeping pace with inflation, its no surprise that ad spend has slowed in tandem. Amidst economic uncertainty and an onslaught of unanswered questions, brands are increasingly looking for demonstrable ROI in their marketing and design budgets. Some may choose to invest in a costly new campaign or commit to a new brand identity, while others will default to slashing their budgets altogether. Cutting marketing dollars is more of a short-term band-aid than a long-term solution. Research by Analytic Partners following the 2008 financial crisis found that 60% of brands that increased their marketing investment during that period generated a positive ROI. While AI disruption, political polarization, and evolving consumer behaviors are contributing to todays economic challenges, the core lesson still holds: Even in uncertain times, stepping off the marketing gas is rarely the answer. This undeniable power of attraction is hard to come by. But its not impossible when considering a series of five crucialand measurablefactors that, once met, can be part of a strategy to increase an overriding choice decision that sometimes can be determined spontaneously or irrationally. 1. Resonance. You must find ways to resonate with your consumers. The companies that resonate the most are the ones that go out of their way to tell emotive stories and bring them to life through every aspect of their brand expression. They develop heartfelt narratives that forge emotional connections with their audiences. These connections increase brand love and go the distance in fostering a consumers relationship with a brand. Brands like Dove set the standard here. By tapping into a deep human need for self-acceptance and belonging, Dove created an emotional connection that went far beyond functional benefits. 2. Relevance. Never underestimate the importance of staying relevant. While resonating with customers requires tapping into their emotional center, relevance speaks more to a clear sense of utility. Does your brand matter to consumers by being both useful and timely? We know that when inflation rises, wages stagnate, and purchasing power fades, consumers spend only on what they deem most important. For Olipop, the unmet need was gut health and soda enjoyment. Using nostalgic yet modern design and uplifting brand world, it gave consumers permission to reintroduce soda into their daily lives. 3. Differentiation. Most marketers would consider this their professional reason for being but outlining a distinct market position and effectively executing it are two inherently different things. Its important to be both unique and recognizable, but if you dont express it with clarity and confidence, you will get lost in the mix. Oatly didnt just market oat milk as another dairy alternativeit defined a cultural position: irreverent, planet-positive, and anti-establishment. 4. Unification. Brands must build a comprehensive toolkit of assets that are united across every touchpoint and channel through which a consumer might interact. But that doesnt mean being rigid or inflexible. For example, McDonalds maintains global consistency in its core messaging, design, and product offerings while adapting locally and offering country or culture-specific menu options. 5. Authenticity. Authenticity should always be top of mind when connecting with consumers. Its not just about defining a clear set of values or beliefs. Its about ensuring each message your brand shares are as close to those beliefs as possible. More than two-thirds (70%) of consumers spend more with authentic brands. From press releases to tweets to Super Bowl spots to new logos, consumers know when theyre being sold a lineand they respond in kind. Brands like Patagonia and Ben & Jerrysliteral poster children for principle-led brandscontinue to lead their categories by acting on their values in visible, credible ways. FINAL THOUGHTS What will separate the winners from the losers over the next year is knowing how to precisely focus marketing investment on places where a company needs that added push the most. This requires a company to harness the ability to magnetize their brand, fostering deep emotional attraction, and turning consumers into loyal advocates by making their company the one consumers want above all others. Jonathan Ford is the founding partner and group chief creative officer of Pearlfisher.
Category:
E-Commerce
Behind its glittery facade, Claire’s is a financial mess. The tween retail icon behind millions of ear piercings and Y2K accessories filed for bankruptcy in August 2025, closing hundreds of stores and selling its North American business for just $104 million. So how does a brand with $1.4 billion in global sales end up with more than $500 million in debt? Fast Company staff writer Elizabeth Segran has been covering the company’s ups and downs for years. In this episode of FC Explains, she breaks down the full Claire’s story, from its mall-era dominance and surprising pandemic comeback to its failed IPO, crushing debt load, tariff difficulties, and the rise of sleeker competitors like Lovisa, Studs, and Rowan.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||