Implications of the Meta/YouTube court decision for PR pros.
A recent court decision holding social media platforms accountable for addictive models could mark a turning point for the industry as well as for the communicators who rely on it.
A jury in Los Angeles found that Meta and YouTube were liable for designing social media products that harmed a young user’s mental health. The case centered on claims that features like infinite scroll and autoplay were intentionally built to keep users hooked.
Jurors sided with plaintiff Alayna Velazquez and her family, awarding $6 million in damages and concluding the companies were negligent and failed to adequately warn users about risks.
“What this really sets up is the ability to hold tech companies accountable for their product and the harm it can cause,” said Jessica Shaw, assistant professor of advertising and public relations at Temple University.
The case became one of the first to successfully convince a jury that social media companies could be held responsible, not just for content on their platforms, but for the way those platforms are built to drive prolonged use.
For PR pros, this may be a signal that how platforms operate and how brands use them are now under deeper scrutiny.
Design is not neutral
Ben Moore, head of U.S. operations at social media platform BeReal, said the ruling reinforces something many in the industry have long understood about platform design: It drives behavior.
“The design of any platform has consequences,” he said. “It has consequences on the mental health of their users as well.”
This puts pressure on the mechanics behind social media, he said. This includes algorithms, infinite scroll and engagement loops. Things brands have spent years optimizing around.
“If the platform is built in a way that is going to optimize for that engagement…then ultimately the platform must be held responsible,” Moore said.
BeReal doesn’t rank or personalize posts, recommend content from strangers or optimize for time spent. It also doesn’t use algorithms, Moore said.
For social media teams, this raises a harder question: If engagement tactics are part of the problem, should brands keep leaning into them?
Part of the challenge is that the current social media ecosystem rewards the behaviors under scrutiny, Moore said.
He pointed to what he sees as a core issue, which is that platforms are optimized for attention above all else.
“What is created is this rush for the dopamine…I would even call it an addiction,” he said.
The same strategies that drive reach and engagement may also contribute to the broader concerns now being debated in courtrooms and policy discussions.
Change may be slow, but people are watching
Despite the ruling, neither Shaw nor Moore expect an immediate transformation from the industry or how companies approach social media.
“As much as I’d like it to change, I don’t foresee a sudden change in how companies operate,” Moore said.
In the U.S., regulation remains fragmented.
“That makes it really challenging,” Shaw said. “Nobody’s out there deciding, what does healthy or fair use of tech platforms look like?”
But even without sweeping policy, expectations are changing, she said.
Audiences are now more aware of how platforms work. Courts are starting to respond. And brands are increasingly judged by where and how they show up.
What this means for PR and social teams
For brands, the immediate impact may not necessarily be regulation. It’s more about reputational risk and alignment, Shaw said.
Organizations need to be more intentional about how they show up, she said.
“What kind of organization do you want to be?” she said. “Do you want to be something that is socially responsible, that cares about your consumers?”
That question now applies to platform choice, content strategy and engagement tactics.
Specifically, communicators should start reassessing:
- Content strategy: Are you creating content designed to keep people scrolling or to provide value and clarity?
- Engagement metrics: Are these still the right measure of success?
“I think for organizations who do rely on things like TikTok or Instagram, you want to ask yourself, like, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable uses of this platform, if you know that the content is capable of causing harm or capable of affecting people’s mental health? I think you need to ask yourself, where do you draw the line?” Shaw said.
This is especially relevant for social media managers who are often tasked with driving growth using the very mechanics now being questioned.
Trust is becoming the new metric
If this moment indicates anything, it’s a discussion of what success looks like on social media.
“The platforms that will win…are going to be the platforms that optimize for trust,” Moore said.
For PR pros, it’s critical to recognizing what their audiences believe is trustworthy. This isn’t just about adapting to a new ruling, Moore said.
“It’s about recognizing that attention is no longer a neutral goal,” he said.
Engagement tactics carry reputational weight and platform choice is part of brand identity, he said.
“We built platforms to capture attention,” he said. “Now we’re being asked to answer for what that attention does to people.”
Courtney Blackann is a communications reporter. Connect with her on LinkedIn or email her at courtneyb@ragan.com.
The post A landmark ruling is reshaping social media. Communicators should pay attention. appeared first on PR Daily.
