2 Rough Social Media Rulings Could Actually Improve the Platforms

Lessons for brands and agencies

Last week, within just two days, juries in New Mexico and California delivered verdicts that could change how we think about social media platforms, their youngest users, and the advertisers who support them.

A Santa Fe jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million after finding the company willfully violated New Mexico’s consumer protection laws by misleading users about the safety of its platforms and enabling child sexual exploitation, the first time a state had prevailed at trial against a major tech company over harm to children. The very next day, a Los Angeles jury found both Meta and YouTube liable for negligently designing addictive platforms that contributed to the depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts of a young woman who began using social media at age 6.

That $6 million verdict is a bellwether for roughly 2,000 pending lawsuits from families and school districts across the country. While headlines may highlight the large sums involved, the real story is what these rulings mean for the health of digital advertising and why responsible advertisers should see them as a positive step.

Pressure to Change, and the Positive Impact

Both companies plan to appeal. Still, the trend is clear. New Mexico’s attorney general is already asking for real age verification, changes to algorithms, and independent oversight of Meta’s platforms. If even some of the 2,000 pending cases follow the California verdict, there will be strong pressure to change how these platforms interact with young users.

Advertisers might worry at first. There could be less precise targeting, fewer users seeing ads, and changes in how young people use these platforms. These are real issues to consider.

However, for most brands, these rulings will have a positive impact. Environment and context are often overlooked in media planning. For years, we have focused on reach, ROA, and detailed targeting, but we rarely ask if the places where our ads appear actually make people open to them. A platform that encourages compulsive behavior in children is not a good place for ads. It’s a risk.

Research shows this clearly. Users who feel in control of their media use—engaged but not compulsive, present but not manipulated—are more open to advertising. Healthy digital spaces lead to better response rates, stronger brand recall, and more purchases. When a platform is designed mainly to keep people online through addictive features, it may boost the number of ad views, but it lowers the quality of each one.

Implications for Brands and Consumers: A Healthy Brand Environment

Brands that should be concerned about these verdicts are those that rely on exploitative targeting, such as reaching vulnerable users when they are most at risk, taking advantage of compulsive scrolling, or depending on algorithms to boost emotional content for engagement. If your media strategy needs a platform to manipulate its users to succeed, it’s not a real strategy. It’s just relying on someone else’s harmful actions.

For everyone else, a world where platforms are required to build healthier products is one where advertising is more effective. Verified audiences allow for more accurate targeting, not less. Users who want to be on a platform are more valuable than those who feel stuck. Brands in trusted, well-regulated spaces gain something that algorithms can’t provide: credibility.

These verdicts won’t solve everything right away. Appeals will take time, and changes may not happen evenly. Still, the main idea is clear: Platforms are responsible for the environments they create.

The advertising industry should have supported this from the start. Better platforms lead to better advertising. It’s that simple.