Meta: 0, Humanity: 1 – Is “Engagement At All Costs” Becoming Social Media’s Biggest Liability?

It’s not often that Silicon Valley’s most powerful companies lose in such a visible, tangible way. But in the space of just a few days, Meta has found itself on the wrong side of not one, but two landmark rulings. Zuckerberg’s been humbled, as Gen Zs would say.

In New Mexico, a jury found the company liable for harming children’s mental health and safety, handing down a $375 million penalty, according to reports. Almost immediately after, a Los Angeles jury ruled that Meta and Google’s YouTube were negligent in designing platforms that contributed to a young user’s mental health struggles, awarding $6 million in damages, according to coverage.

Individually, these are serious legal blows, and together, they signal something much bigger. That is, a growing willingness to hold social media companies accountable not just for what’s on their platforms, but for how those platforms are built. The principles they’re built on and what drives them.

A Business Model Under Fire

For years, the social media economy has been powered by a simple equation: more engagement equals more revenue. The longer users stay, scroll, click and return, the more valuable they become to advertisers.

That model has shaped everything from product design to algorithmic priorities. Infinite scroll, autoplay video, personalised feeds, push notifications – these aren’t just features, they’re engagement engines, carefully optimised to keep users hooked. It’s not just a little add on, it’s the ultimate point.

The lawsuits cut straight through this model and straight to the point. In the Los Angeles case, jurors didn’t just look at harmful content. Rather, they focused on the design mechanics themselves, concluding that platforms were engineered in ways that encouraged compulsive use and failed to warn users of the risks, according to reporting.

This is a subtle but critical shift that really needs to be acknowledged for what it is. Social media companies have long argued they are neutral platforms, hosting user-generated content, but courts now, are beginning to see them less as passive hosts and more as active architects of behaviour.

From Feature to Liability

What we’re seeing here is a fundamental reclassification of engagement-driven design. Features that were once celebrated as product innovation are now being reframed as potential liabilities – from exciting to concerning. Infinite scroll isn’t just about seamless UX. Rather, it’s being compared to mechanisms that encourage addiction. Recommendation algorithms aren’t just helpful; they can amplify harmful content in pursuit of attention.

Comparisons to Big Tobacco aren’ just hyperbolic anymore. Legal experts and analysts have begun drawing parallels between today’s lawsuits and the early cases against cigarette companies, where internal knowledge of harm collided with profit-driven design decisions, according to analysis.

And now, the implication is clearly that if engagement-first design knowingly contributes to harm, it may no longer be defensible as simply “good business.”

This Feels Like A Turning Point

Social media has faced criticism for years, from misinformation to mental health concerns, but meaningful accountability has been slow to materialise.

What makes this moment different is that courts are now engaging with the mechanics of platforms, not just the outcomes. The legal focus is shifting from “what users see” to “what platforms are designed to do.”

That distinction matters. It opens the door to a wave of litigation that bypasses traditional protections and targets product design itself. With thousands of similar cases reportedly in the pipeline, this may very well only be the beginning.

At the same time, regulators are circling, and following the New Mexico verdict, officials have already discussed forcing changes to platform design. This includes limits on recommendations, reduced notifications and stricter safeguards for minors, according to reports.

In other words, engagement isn’t just being questioned culturally anymore; it’s actually being challenged legally.

Engagement Isn’t Enough Anymore

For startups and product builders, this shift carries serious implications. For the past decade, “engagement” has been one of the most important metrics in tech. Founders pitch it, investors chase it and product teams optimise for it relentlessly. But if engagement comes at the cost of user wellbeing, it may no longer be a badge of success – it could very well become a risk factor.

The next generation of platforms may need to rethink what success looks like. Instead of maximising time spent, there’s growing pressure to prioritise healthy usage, trust and long-term value.

That might mean friction by design, fewer notifications and more transparency. Even features that encourage users to log off rather than stay on.

Not long ago, those choices would have seemed counterintuitive, but today, they may become a competitive advantage.

Is this the End of Engagement At All Costs?

Meta and Google are appealing the rulings, and the legal battles are far from over, which isn’t much of a surprise. But still, something has already shifted.

The idea that platforms can prioritise engagement without fully accounting for its consequences is starting to unravel. What was once the foundation of social media’s success is now being examined as its greatest vulnerability. If this trend continues, the industry may be entering a new phase – one in which growth is no longer driven purely by attention, but by responsibility.

And if that’s the case, this week’s scoreline might be more than symbolic.

Expert Opinions

• Iona Silverman: Intellectual Property and Media Partner at Freeths LLP
• Diana Yevsieieva: PR and Brand Strategist at Diana Yevsieieva PR & Communication
• Sam Brown: Co-Founder at Novus Nine
• Flo Powell: Joint Managing Director at Midnight

Iona Silverman, Intellectual Property and Media Partner at Freeths LLP

“This case is a watershed moment. The public, governments and now the US legal system have made clear that social media companies must bear responsibility for the products that they create.

Historically the platforms were protected, in the EU and UK for example by the hosting defence which said that the platforms were mere hosts of user generated content. That will no longer wash.

While I don’t expect to see similar class action in the UK, this most recent decision will put increased pressure on the government to ensure the online safety act is enforced, and to implement further measures to ensure the safety of young people online.”

Diana Yevsieieva, PR and Brand Strategist at Diana Yevsieieva PR & Communications

“Engagement at all costs” isn’t just a strategy anymore – it’s a brand’s slow-acting poison.

“This $375M Meta ruling in New Mexico feels like the moment the music finally stopped. For years, we’ve excused the “move fast and break things” mantra as just the price of innovation, but when the cost is user safety, the bill is eventually going to come due. As a strategist, I see this as a massive turning point. Brands can no longer hide behind algorithms; they now inherit the reputational mess of the platforms they live on.

“We’re entering an era of “Silent Value.” The winners won’t be those screaming for attention, but those investing in privacy, utility, and genuine community depth. If a platform can’t protect its most vulnerable, it doesn’t deserve our ad spend – or our trust.”

Sam Brown, Co-Founder at Novus Nine

“To be honest, $375 million is just a drop in the ocean for a company like Meta. It is a disgrace that we are still letting platforms chase clicks and rage-bait at any cost. We should not be tailoring algorithms for these kinds of people. It is unsafe and, frankly, it should be illegal.

“Moving fast is important, but protecting people is more important. These companies have enough money to make their platforms safe, but they choose not to. We need strict, worldwide laws to hold them accountable. This is not about restricting freedom of speech; it is about stopping the distribution of harmful content. You would not allow a physical shop to sell something this dangerous, so why is it okay online? Companies must step up, educate users, and put safety before their bottom line. It is time we stopped treating these fines as the cost of doing business.”

Flo Powell, Joint Managing Director at Midnight

“This case represents a turning point in how brands should be thinking about social media and how they’re using it. The implications are massive. If you’re targeting younger audiences, you should be stepping back and asking not just what works, but what’s responsible. How you use these platforms, and why, now needs to be part of your risk conversation.”