The Meta and YouTube ruling and what it means for brands using social media

A recent US ruling has sent shockwaves through Big Tech. In a landmark case, a jury in Los Angeles found that Meta and YouTube designed addictive products that harmed young people, and ordered the companies to pay $6 million (£4.4m) in damages to the claimant. We take a closer look at this story and examine what it means for the future of social media in terms of PR and comms.

It was a case of David and Goliath. A 20-year-old woman brought a claim against the social media giants, arguing that years of exposure to social media, beginning in childhood, had contributed to serious harm to her mental health. The jury found that platform design – including features intended to maximise engagement – played a role.

The story dominated the headlines when the judgment was handed down. And while much of the coverage focused on legal precedent and platform accountability, for those of us in marketing and communications, the implications run much deeper.

This isn’t simply a story about Silicon Valley. It reflects a broader shift in how responsibility is understood across digital platforms, including the brands that rely on them to reach audiences.

From platform neutrality to shared responsibility

For years, organisations have treated social media as something that’s neutral. Campaigns are planned, content is created and targeting is optimised, while the platform itself is seen as simply the delivery mechanism. However, the legal arguments in this case challenge that assumption.

Rather than focusing on user-generated content, the court examined how features such as infinite scroll, autoplay and algorithmic feeds were designed to maximise engagement and keep users – including children – online for longer.

If liability can be attached to how content is delivered, not just what it contains, then brands cannot fully separate themselves from the platforms they use. Where content appears, how it is delivered and who is exposed to it are becoming matters of both compliance and reputation.

The business model behind engagement

There’s also a commercial dimension. Analysts have warned that the ruling could affect the advertising models underpinning these platforms, raising concerns about increased liability and the risk of further legal challenges, as well as potential changes to how engagement is generated.

For communications teams, the challenge is immediate. Many of the tools used to maximise reach – algorithmic targeting and personalised feeds – are the same mechanisms now being criticised in court.

So, the features that make social media effective for marketing are also those being reframed as potential sources of harm.

Changing expectations for brands

Some early analysis has begun to explore what this means in practice. A recent piece in Vogue suggests brands may need to rethink influencer partnerships and move towards more responsible storytelling.

There are clear implications for PR and communications professionals. Reputation is shaped not only by what organisations say, but by how and where they say it.

If platforms are increasingly associated with harm – particularly among younger audiences – then brand activity on those platforms will come under closer scrutiny.

Are social media’s halcyon days over?

Some commentators have described the verdict as Big Tech’s ‘Big Tobacco moment’ and we know how that story played out. It didn’t end smoking altogether, but it fundamentally changed how products were regulated and marketed.

The same questions are now beginning to surface for social media. Could we see health warnings on platforms? Restrictions on advertising, particularly where younger audiences are concerned?

It would be premature to suggest that social media has reached a tipping point. These platforms remain central to how people communicate and engage with brands.

However, the conditions under which they operate are changing. The Meta and YouTube ruling signals the end of an era in which platforms – and those who use them – could operate with relatively limited scrutiny.

For marketing and communications professionals, this is a moment to reassess. The question is no longer simply how to reach audiences, but how to do so responsibly.

Omar Baggili is a Content Manager at Freshwater UK, the Cardiff-headquartered communications consultancy.