For years we called it “engagement.” Courts are now calling it something else.
In 2026, social media stopped being only a cultural debate and became a legal one. In the US and in Europe, Meta has been accused, and in some cases found liable, of deliberately engineering Instagram and Facebook to keep users hooked. In a Nashville courtroom, the Tennessee Attorney General called Instagram an “addiction machine.”
The mechanism is no secret. Infinite scroll, autoplay, Reels, push notifications and recommendation algorithms optimized for time spent are all designed to deliver small, unpredictable rewards. Each one triggers a dopamine hit, through the same reward circuitry exploited by slot machines and many addictive substances. You never reach the end of the feed, because the feed was built not to have one.
What happened in 2026
The numbers speak for themselves:
- New Mexico: a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for misleading the public about the safety of its platforms for minors.
- Los Angeles: in the first individual case to reach a verdict, a jury found Meta and YouTube liable for the addiction of a young woman who started using social media as a child.
- United States, multistate case: to end a federal trial brought by dozens of states, Meta agreed to a settlement of about $17 billion. It also agreed to concrete product changes: a default two-hour daily limit for minors, a block on use between midnight and 6 am, hidden like counts, and an option for a feed that is not driven by the algorithm.
- European Union: the Commission preliminarily found Meta in breach of the Digital Services Act over the addictive design of Facebook and Instagram. It asked for structural changes, with potential fines of up to 6% of global turnover.
- Italy: in Milan, a group of families supported by Moige has started a class action against Meta and TikTok, asking for an end to addictive algorithms and for real age verification.
The most significant part is not the money, but the fact that a company has, for the first time, accepted changes to how the product works. That is an implicit admission that the design itself is part of the problem.
What’s the point?
Social media is no longer a young industry. It is a mature business with billions of users, and like every mature industry that has an impact on public health (tobacco, alcohol, gambling, pharmaceuticals), it needs rules that match its power.
Addictive design is only half of the story. The other half is what happens inside the platforms.
Letting anyone upload, write and comment on anything, with no consequences, has given many people the ability to be extremely offensive toward others. Insults, harassment, defamation and coordinated hate campaigns have become routine. The algorithm then amplifies them, because outrage generates engagement, and engagement generates revenue.
Responsibility and accountability
I believe the time has come for one of two things, or ideally both.
1. Platforms must take responsibility for what they amplify. Not necessarily for every single post, but for what their algorithms choose to push in front of millions of people. If a newspaper is responsible for what it publishes, a platform that actively selects and distributes content cannot claim to be a neutral pipe.
2. Anonymity should not mean impunity. Today too many people feel completely shielded from legal consequences. One option is verified identity toward the platform: users could still appear under a pseudonym, but in case of a crime they could be identified by the authorities.
To be fair, anonymity also protects whistleblowers, victims of abuse and dissidents in authoritarian countries. The goal is not to expose everyone, but to make sure that whoever breaks the law online can be held accountable, exactly as in the physical world.
Would this solve the problem? Probably not entirely. But it would sharply reduce the number of people who feel free to attack anyone they don’t like, simply because nothing will ever happen to them.
Are governments strong enough?
Honestly, I doubt it. The platforms are global, the laws are national, and lobbying power is enormous. The European Union is trying with the DSA, and the upcoming Digital Fairness Act is expected to target addictive design directly, but enforcement is slow, and the technology moves much faster than the rules.
Yet the cost of doing nothing is becoming visible, especially among the younger generations:
- Shorter attention spans, which translate into lower academic performance
- Sudden outbursts of aggression and violence, often born or amplified online
- More fragile, unstable relationships
- Less face-to-face conversation
- A weaker ability to use language to build and defend an argument, replaced by memes, reactions and 15-second clips
A generation that cannot focus, argue or debate is not only a social problem. It is a problem for our democracies, our economies and our companies.
The question
The courts have opened the door. A $17 billion settlement shows that change is possible when the pressure is strong enough. The question is whether we will wait for another ten years of lawsuits, or whether we will decide, as citizens, parents, professionals and regulators, that the rules of the game must change now.
Should social media platforms be held responsible like publishers? And are we ready to give up some anonymity in exchange for more accountability?
I’d like to hear your view, here in the comments or in the discussion on LinkedIn.
Sources
- Oaklandside – AG trial opens
- PBS/AP – $17B settlement
- ABC News – settlement terms
- BU – expert analysis
- MLex – judge’s approval
- The Capitolist – Florida rejects
- Newsweek – state payouts, Texas
- NY1/AP – overview of lawsuits
- WION – Tennessee trial
- TechRepublic – New Mexico verdict
- Law360 – K.G.M. verdict
- Wikipedia – K.G.M. v. Meta
- Seeger Weiss – school district settlement
- ConsumerShield – MDL status
- Slaughter and May – EU DSA
- Politis – EU demands
- Sky TG24 – Milan class action
- Il Giorno – Milan class action
Originally published on LinkedIn on 20 October 2026.
