by Daniel Covington
In 2007, the world was changed when the iPhone launched. Apple paved the way for phones to be used for so much more than just calling and texting, but few predicted exactly how fast social media would take off. Some, however, saw potential issues and called for regulation to help prevent issues of addiction, isolation, echo chambers, and depression, among many others. Over twenty years later, that trends seems to be hitting a fever pitch.
Countries such as Australia and Malaysia have already moved to ban social media for users under 16. Furthermore, Aljazeera states that in Australia, “Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, said this week that by the day after the ban came into effect, it had removed nearly 550,000 accounts belonging to users understood to be under 16.” Over 10 other countries have proposed similar bills. In the United States, this trend is starting to show up as well. In Louisville, Kentucky, JCPS “implemented a district-wide ban on student cell phones, smartwatches, and other personal digital devices during the school day, effective for the 2025-26 school year.” The policy, which requires devices to be kept off and out of sight, aims to increase student engagement, with many schools utilizing lockers or secure pouches (e.g., Yondr). These bans on both phones and social media show how public opinion has been changing, people are starting to realize the harm and distraction that social media and excessive phone use can bring in our youth.
Beyond the move to bans, many individuals have taken things into their own hands.
The case currently unfolding in Los Angeles is what’s known as a bellwether trial. Because there are thousands of similar lawsuits pending across the country, this case, among over a dozen others, serve as a legal ‘test run’ to see how juries will react to claims of social media addiction. The outcome here won’t just affect one family; it will likely set the precedent—and the price tag—for how the rest of these cases are treated. On Tuesday, jury selection began in Los Angeles for the first of the lawsuits, which will proceed in both state and federal court. According to reporting from NBC news, the class action master complaint, more than 1,600 plaintiffs — including over 350 families and over 250 school districts — accuse the owners of Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and Snap of knowingly designing addictive products that are harmful to young users’ mental health. The plaintiffs allege that Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat “have rewired how our kids think, feel, and behave.”
Given the myriad of alleged effects mentioned earlier, it’s easy to see how these lawsuits have the potential to affect our youth in every way. Now the only thing left to do is wait for these first bellwether cases to play out.
Many people are happy to see the social media companies challenged and held accountable. Many of the people I talk to know that social media is bad for them. According to a Pew research center, 48% of teens say social media harms people their age; this is up from 32% just four years ago. In 2023, Gallup did a poll on teenagers in America. Overall, the poll shows that teenagers spend about 4.8 hours every day on social media. For boys it’s 4.4; for girls, this goes up to 5.3. Girls spend most of their time on TikTok, with YouTube a very close second. Boys spend the majority of their time on YouTube.
So, with these landmark cases and a seemingly worldwide movement against social media for teens, what could this mean for our favorite time-sucking apps? It is not inconceivable to think that in two to five years, most teenagers will go from spending much of their day “doomscrolling” to not having access to social media at all. These lawsuits could also have the ability to force all social media companies to change how their networks work. Neverending doom scrolling could be a problem of the past. After all, many of these lawsuits not only say that addiction is a problem but that it is the intent of every one of these social media companies. Furthermore, they allege that the more addicted these kids are, the more money that there is to be made.
It is important to realize that this is just the beginning. As the L.A. bellwether trial moves forward, the question for Gen Z isn’t just about what they are losing, but also about what could be gained. If the average teen gets back, on average, five hours, this would mean a generation would be reclaiming ⅓ of their waking life.