California, Meta tries to overturn conviction for social media addiction

The defense of the giant led by Mark Zuckerberg is based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a federal regulation that historically protects online service providers from content published by third parties. According to the company’s lawyers, the evidence presented during the hearing would link the plaintiff’s discomfort to the type of posts displayed, rather than to structural features such as infinite scrolling or automatic video playback. This distinction is fundamental in the attempt to shift responsibility from the design of the platform, considered by the judges to be an active element, to the mere hosting of external content.

The lawsuit represents just the tip of the iceberg of a much larger legal battle, with thousands of similar lawsuits brought by families, schools and state governments across the United States. While Google has also announced its intention to appeal and competitors such as Snap and TikTok have preferred to settle before the start of the trial, the outcome of this clash is destined to determine future digital security standards. The interpretation of Section 230 remains the central issue that could redefine the boundaries of Big Tech’s responsibility towards the mental health of new generations.