Is Meta’s $567 Million Verdict Social Media’s Seatbelt Moment For Children?

Raising children in the world of social media is something everybody’s still very much trying to get used to and wrap their heads around. Applications and platforms like Facebook, Instagram and TikTok have only really made their way into the mainstream in the last fifteen-odd years, so it’s no surprise that we’re still trying to figure out how to use them safely and how to manage the way children use them independently, too.

Indeed, parents are (mostly) well aware that keeping their children safe on social media is very much partly their responsibility, as well as that of those in charge of these platforms. Parents are told they should be checking the privacy settings, setting screen-time limits, monitoring what their children are watching, making sure they know who they are talking to and turning on parental controls.

It all sounds quite reasonable, but putting all the onus on the parents is missing the fact that they don’t know eerything about how these applications work. That is, they can’t ask questions about things they don’t know, so naturally, it begs the question: how much responsibility should parents really have for managing risks created by products they didn’t design?

This issue has been brought into sharper focus by a New Mexico court ruling ordering Meta to pay $567 million into a state fund for youth mental health and to make significant changes to Facebook and Instagram for younger users. This $567 million follows a $375 million jury award earlier in the same case, taking the total financial liability to a whopping $942 million. Meta has said it plans to appeal the ruling and disputes the claims made against it.

The judge also ordered an additional series of measures for young users in New Mexico, including things like stricter age verification, a limit of 90 hours of monthly use for under-18s, restrictions on push notifications during school hours and overnight, parental consent for displaying the number of likes on a child’s posts and restrictions on certain interactions between minors and Meta’s AI chatbots.

This is where the seatbelt analogy becomes both relevant and interesting.

 

What If Safety Should Be Built In?

 

Nobody expects parents to understand the engineering behind a car before putting their child in one. They don’t need to understand the physics of a collision or know how a seatbelt was manufactured; the safety mechanism is simply there and we’re told that we can trust its efficacy and the fact that it’ll keep us and our children safe.

Well, we spoke to several experts on the topic of children using social media and the ways in which these platforms should protect them, and we think that there’s a decent comparison to be made between the seatbelt story and the social media model.

Jeanine Bobenmoyer, Founder and Chief Mom Officer of theCityMoms, argues that online safety has traditionally required parents to actively seek out the right controls: “I think this is a real turning point. For years, safety settings on social platforms have been treated like an add-on parents have to go hunting for in a menu, not something built into the product by default – kinda the same way seatbelts used to be optional equipment before they were mandated.”

The reason this is so compelling is the fact it is, surely, the social media experts’ responsibility at least in some ways to educate parents on the potential dangers of social media and ensure that the children using the platforms and apps aren’t vulnerable to those dangers. So if a platform knows that a user is a child, perhaps the safest available experience shouldn’t depend on whether their parent knows which settings to change.

Frankie Manes, Director of Social Media and Influencer Marketing at Real FiG Advertising + Marketing, takes a similar view. According to Manes, “if a social media platform knows that a user is a minor, their safety shouldn’t depend only on parental controls. Protections should be built into the platform by default, and a user’s age should affect what content is recommended to them, what ads they are shown, who can interact with them and what privacy settings are turned on by default from the moment they sign up.”

That would represent a fairly significant change in how technology companies think about child safety. Rather than offering safety features as something users can activate (as an opt-in feature), the expectation would increasingly be that safety influences the product’s basic architecture.

 

 

But Is Social Media Really Like A Car?

 

This is where the analogy starts to fall apart a little bit. Seatbelts have a relatively straightforward relationship with physical safety, while social media is considerably more complicated.

The effects of social media on young people’s mental health aren’t universally negative, and the experience of using these platforms varies considerably between individuals. That’s why not everyone agrees that the seatbelt comparison is appropriate. Indeed, Nicole Prause, Ph.D., a Bioinformatics Programmer at the University of California, strongly rejects the analogy.

“These bans are the Satanic panic of the 1980’s, not remotely a “seatbelt” moment. Seatbelts have a strong, clear relationship to improved health outcomes. Social media health effects are a mix of positive and negative effects at best, but appear primarily healthy for most people.”

Prause’s point is worth considering, because a court ruling shouldn’t just be treated as if it’s settled every scientific question surrounding social media and mental health. Indeed, the New Mexico case concerns Meta’s conduct and the state’s claims about its platforms. The ruling doesn’t establish that social media as a whole is inherently harmful to children. It also doesn’t create a nationwide rule.

Indeed, the measures ordered by the judge apply to Meta’s operations in New Mexico, and the company has said it intends to appeal.

 

The Bigger Question Is, Who Carries The Risk?

 

Now, this is where the seatbelt analogy becomes useful again. The real issue isn’t whether Instagram is literally the digital equivalent of a car, it’s whether society is becoming less willing to place the entire burden of managing product-related risks on individual users.

Mohammed Shariff, Founding and Managing Attorney at Shariff Injury Lawyers, believes that prevention is the important part of the comparison: “The truly important ‘seatbelt moment’ will be when our child safety is not just another optional setting but becomes part of how social media platforms operate.”

And that’s a different way of looking at platform safety. Instead of asking whether parents have been given enough controls, the question becomes whether companies have done enough to prevent foreseeable risks before children encounter them. And that could become more and more relevant as technology companies introduce more sophisticated recommendation systems, AI features and other forms of personalised interaction.

 

Could This Change How Tech Companies Build?

 

It’s far too early to say whether the New Mexico ruling will fundamentally change the technology industry on a broad scale, because for now, its direct consequences are relatively specific. The order applies to Meta’s platforms in New Mexico, and the company is appealing the ruling. According to RTE 100, the judge also rejected some of the state’s requested changes, including proposals relating to Meta’s algorithms and features such as infinite scrolling and autoplay videos.

But the case could still matter beyond New Mexico. Meta is facing wider legal and regulatory scrutiny over the treatment of young users, and the New Mexico Attorney General has suggested that the ruling could provide a model for other cases. A separate federal trial involving claims from 29 diffreent states was also due to begin in California shortly after the New Mexico ruling.

And that doesn’t mean every social media company is suddenly going to be forced to introduce a 90-hour monthly limit, but it does indicate that courts and regulators are increasingly willing to ask what responsibility belongs to the companies designing these platforms.

For startups, that could eventually become an important consideration too. After all, building safety into a product from day one is generally quite different from trying to bolt it on after millions of people are already using it.

 

So, Is This Social Media’s Seatbelt Moment?

 

Some say yes, and some say no, but the answer is probably somehwere in between. Thus, the more interesting answer might be that we’re approaching one. The $567 million ruling is significant, particularly because it combines a pretty hefty financial penalty with specific requirements for changes to how Meta operates its platforms for young users in New Mexico. But still, it’s not the end of the debate, and it definitely isn’t proof that every concern about social media and children has been scientifically resolved.

Indeed, it seems like the real test will be what happens next. If platforms simply add more warnings, parental controls and safety menus, then the underlying model hasn’t changed all that much. But, if companies start asking whether child safety should influence the way a product is designed before it is released, on the other hand, then this ruling could mark something much more significant in the long run.

 

What Do the Experts Think?

 

• Frankie Manes: Director of Social Media and Influencer Marketing at Real FiG Advertising + Marketing
• Mohammed Shariff: Founding and Managing Attorney at Shariff Injury Lawyers
• Nicole Prause Ph.D.: Bioinformatics Programmer at the University of California
• Patrick Moore: Founder of Memory Murals
• Jennifer Stack: Head of Content and Adjunct Professor
• Asim Zahid: Founder at Maro
• Rich Heller: Therapist and Founder at Rich In Relationship
• Rachit Jawa: Co-Founder at MiscGyan and Technical Co-Founder at Sosh Labs AI
• Nebojsa Savicic: Co-Founder of Plainly Videos
• Allan Gregorio: Digital Artist and Creative Technologist
• EricTurney: Owner and Sales and Marketing Director at The Monterey Company
• Ekaterina Arlt-Kalthoff: Founder at ElevateHER
• Jeanine Bobenmoyer: Founder and Chief Mom Officer of theCityMoms

 

Jeanine Bobenmoyer, Founder and Chief Mom Officer of theCityMoms

 

 

“Yes, I think this is a real turning point. For years, safety settings on social platforms have been treated like an add-on parents have to go hunting for in a menu, not something built into the product by default — kinda the same way seatbelts used to be optional equipment before they were mandated.

“As a mom of two teens, I’ve had to piece together parental controls myself, app by app, platform by platform, and most parents I talk to feel the same fatigue. If a verdict like this pushes platforms toward safety-by-default instead of safety-if-you-know-where-to-look, that’s a real win for families — it shouldn’t take a tech-savvy parent to keep a kid safe online.”

 

Frankie Manes, Director of Social Media and Influencer Marketing at Real FiG Advertising + Marketing

 

 

“I think the seatbelt comparison is a fair one. If a social media platform knows that a user is a minor, their safety shouldn’t depend only on parental controls. Protections should be built into the platform by default, and a user’s age should affect what content is recommended to them, what ads they are shown, who can interact with them, and what privacy settings are turned on by default from the moment they sign up.

“Platforms can already use age to set these protections, since they already personalise these features based on large amounts of user data. Whatever happens next, this court decision is already putting more pressure on social media platforms and raising an important question about whether child safety should be an optional feature or a basic requirement of the product itself.”

Mohammed Shariff, Founding and Managing Attorney at Shariff Injury Lawyers

 

 

“The truly important “seatbelt moment” will be when our child safety is not just another optional setting but becomes part of how social media platforms operate. That $567 million award is significant because it brings into sharp focus a broader issue: what reasonable safety precautions should companies install in their products when they know children are likely to use them, even before harm occurs?

“An injury-law standpoint suggests that efforts should be made before the harm happens. One must first do everything possible to avoid its happening in the first place. For social media, this might mean default settings appropriate for the age of the child, strong privacy protections, restrictions on unwanted adult contact and clear tools to notify parents when children are experiencing or at risk of experiencing harmful exposure. The seatbelt analogy is a good one, because automotive safety evolved away from individual reliance and instead prescribed protections that exist within the vehicle itself.

“A decision does not create a national precedent, and the case can be appealed and affect the outcome. The bigger turning point will be whether courts, lawmakers and regulators create clear standards that embed child safety as a design requirement while preserving lawful speech and parental autonomy. Should this happen, platforms are expected to show that safety is built into the product and not just offered after something happens.”

 

Nicole Prause Ph.D., Bioinformatics Programmer at the University of California

 

 

 

“These bans are the Satanic panic of the 1980’s, not remotely a “seatbelt” moment. Seatbelts have a strong, clear relationship to improved health outcomes. Social media health effects are a mix of positive and negative effects at best, but appear primarily healthy for most people. Rather than following science, which is helping identify when and for whom the media are risky or beneficial, the courts have taken an uninformed cudgel to suggest effects could only have been negative and did not interact with the state or traits of the individuals.

“It is important to identify for whom mental health risks may exist in these media, but the current media frenzy claiming exclusively negative effects appear most similar to the misguided, false panic in the 1980’s that children were being swept en masse into Satanic cults from Dungeons and Dragons or video games or the de jour panic of the moment.”

 

Patrick Moore, Founder of Memory Murals 

 

 

“I think the seatbelt comparison is appropriate because we’re reaching the point where child safety online can no longer be treated as an optional feature parents have to discover, configure, or pay for. When a product is designed to maximize attention and engagement, particularly among children, the company designing that system should also bear responsibility for anticipating the harm those mechanics can create.

“The turning point will be when we stop asking whether platforms offer parental controls and start asking whether the safest experience for a child is built into the product by default. We eventually decided cars shouldn’t become less safe simply because a driver forgot to buckle up; I think we’re moving toward the same expectation for digital platforms.”

 

Jennifer Stack, Head of Content and Adjunct Professor

 

 

“This ruling raises two massive questions: scalability and behavioral efficacy. Monetarily, New Mexico benefits directly and exclusively, but architecturally, the global platform implications for the product adjustments are promising as Meta usually avoids building siloed, state-by-state builds after testing new features.

“As both a Social Media practitioner and a Content Strategy Professor, the deeper issue is whether these court-mandated features like screen-time caps, notification throttling, and safety banners will actually curb addictive loops, as many of these triggers still rely on user discipline to take action after receiving the message. Unless features are strictly enforced by default, we may soon find ourselves needing formal addiction and cessation support groups for social media.”

 

Asim Zahid, Founder at Maro

 

 

“I learned a thing or two about building a LegitScript-certified healthcare platform that the Meta verdict is now compelling the tech industry to face head-on. When a digital product impacts someone’s health, safety must be built into the product, not after the fact. The seatbelt comparison is spot on and I have seen what it costs to get that design decision wrong.

“The seatbelt comparison is the correct one, and I say that as an individual who had to make the same design decision before building Maro.

“When I built a healthcare platform, clinical safety wasn’t something I added after launch. It was the architecture that the product was based on. LegitScript certification, licensed clinician supervision, data security measures – all of this was in place before a single patient utilized the platform. You can’t add those decisions to a product that was not designed with them in mind.

“That’s what Meta is learning for $567 million.

“The ruling marks a shift from the regulators’ “wait and see” approach to platforms self-correcting. By now, social media companies have had years to make safety a feature of their products, if they so choose. Now the law is making it a requirement and not a differentiator.

“That’s the seatbelt moment.”

 

Rich Heller, Therapist and Founder at Rich In Relationship

 

 

“I am of an age where parents thought it a good idea for children to have a little alcohol. As an adolescent, a little wine at dinner or at dances in Scotland we had “shanty” (beer and apple juice in that area) or we had hard cider in limited amounts with adult supervision. At that time popular wisdom was it was a responsible way to teach youths how to drink responsibly. However, as our understanding of adolescent development and alcohol-related risk evolved, our cultural expectations changed dramatically.

“This is the kind of moment we are having with social media. The question we will be asking ourselves as we explore the impact of social media on develpiong brains and neurology is “How much access should children have to social media and screens in general?” and I would add “what kind and how much preparation should they receive about how to use them?”

“Parents certainly have responsibility here and much like alcohol, we may actually need to regulate age-related use because it is so addictive. The conversation we need to have for the well-being and development of our children needs to shift to a developmentally appropriate level of access.”

 

Rachit Jawa, Co-Founder at MiscGyan and Technical Co-Founder at Sosh Labs AI

 

 

“The Meta verdict has the potential to be a watershed moment, but I’d argue we’re still in the phase of discovering just how much damage has been done. Seatbelts worked because the harm was physical and immediate; the danger with social media is psychological, cumulative, and often invisible until it’s too late. This fact also makes it susceptible to political narrative, which can be influenced by big money. That said, this ruling sends a clear signal: child safety can no longer be a feature we opt into. It has to be a design constraint baked into the architecture itself.

“If you’re building products that touch young users, safety-by-design has to be a core engineering principle, not a compliance checkbox. The real test will be enforcement. Fines alone won’t change behavior; we need platform-level accountability, transparent algorithms, and age-appropriate defaults that are on by default, not buried in settings.”

 

Nebojsa Savicic, Co-Founder of Plainly Videos

 

 

“Automation has taught us a valuable lesson. The biggest impact is designing the right process up front, not fixing mistakes after the fact. The same logic should also apply to digital platforms for young audiences. The vast majority of technology companies already include privacy, security, and accessibility requirements in their development process as these are seen as fundamental. Child safety deserves no less. It shouldn’t fall on users to dig for hidden settings, or on parents to be hovering over every encounter.

“The recent ruling could catalyze that change. Instead of asking whether platforms should be required to have more safety features, the industry should be asking whether every new feature has been evaluated for its potential impact on younger users before being released.

“When safety is part of the design process and not a reaction, companies often build better products overall. That’s probably good for users, regulators, advertisers and ultimately the platforms themselves.”

 

Allan Gregorio, Digital Artist and Creative Technologist

 

 

“I have built AR effects inside Meta, TikTok and Snapchat’s creative tools since 2019. That work has been used billions of times, mostly by young people, so platform safety rules are my daily working conditions. In the creator layer, safety stopped being optional years ago. Every effect passes review before anyone can use it, guidelines block categories that could harm how teens see themselves, and TikTok now restricts some appearance-altering effects for under-18s.

“None of that killed creativity. The rules became the baseline and creators adapted within weeks. So the seatbelt comparison rings true. Built-in safety works, I make things inside those constraints every day. This verdict pushes the same logic up a level, to the feeds and systems platforms design themselves. Optional safety is ending, and the industry will adapt faster than it claims.”

 

Eric Turney, Owner and Sales and Marketing Director at The Monterey Company 

 

 

“I do think this could become a turning point for social media. The seatbelt comparison makes sense because child safety should not be treated like an optional feature, a setting buried in a menu, or something parents have to fight the platform to control. If a product is used heavily by minors, safety has to be part of the design from the start.

“As a business owner and parent, I think the bigger shift is accountability. Tech companies have been able to grow first and deal with harm later. That model is breaking down. Platforms should be responsible for age-appropriate defaults, limits on addictive design, stronger parental tools, and real enforcement when kids are targeted or exposed to harmful content.

“Child safety should be a core product requirement, not a public relations response after damage is done.”

 

Ekaterina Arlt-Kalthoff, Founder at ElevateHER 

 

 

“As both a mother and a social media expert, I see this issue from two perspectives: as someone who understands how digital platforms are designed, and as a parent who wants those environments to be safe for young people. For me, the key question is not whether social media is inherently “good” or “bad”, but how platforms are built and which risks companies are willing to accept.

“A 2025 longitudinal study published in JAMA Network Open, involving nearly 12,000 children, found that increasing social media use in early adolescence was associated with more depressive symptoms in the following year.

“That is why I find the comparison with seatbelt laws so compelling. Child safety should not depend on optional settings or parental vigilance alone. It should be built into the digital architecture itself, through age-appropriate defaults, safer recommendation systems and clear limits on manipulative design.”

 

Jeanine Bobenmoyer, Founder and Chief Mom Officer of theCityMoms

 

 

“Yes, I think this is a real turning point. For years, safety settings on social platforms have been treated like an add-on parents have to go hunting for in a menu, not something built into the product by default — kinda the same way seatbelts used to be optional equipment before they were mandated.

“As a mom of two teens, I’ve had to piece together parental controls myself, app by app, platform by platform, and most parents I talk to feel the same fatigue. If a verdict like this pushes platforms toward safety-by-default instead of safety-if-you-know-where-to-look, that’s a real win for families — it shouldn’t take a tech-savvy parent to keep a kid safe online.”