SUMMARY

In a span of less than 24 hours, juries have returned historic verdicts in a pair of high-profile lawsuits that accuse big tech companies including Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, and YouTube of putting children and teens in harm's way on their social media platforms. John Yang discussed more with Jacob Ward of The Rip Current.

View the transcript of the story.

NOTE: If you are short on time, watch the video and complete this See, Think, Wonder activity: What did you notice? What did the story make you think about? What would you want to learn more about?

News alternative: Check out recent segments from the News Hour, and choose the story you’re most interested in watching. You can make a Google doc copy of discussion questions that work for any of the stories here.

WARM-UP QUESTIONS

1. Where (which states) did the cases originate from?
2. Who was found liable (two companies)?
3. Why were Meta and YouTube found liable?
4. How did family members respond following the Court's decision? How has META responded following the Court's decision?
5. What are the likely effects of the courts' decisions, according to Jacob Ward?

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

• Do you agree with the Court's decision that found Meta liable (at fault) for purposely creating a platform that addicts young children and teenagers? Why or why not?
• Do you think the companies will redesign their platforms given that families will be more encouraged to sue following the Supreme Court's decision? Explain.
• If you've used social media apps like Instagram, have you ever felt like it was difficult to leave the page? Explain. How would a person know if he/she might be addicted to social media?

Media literacy: According to Jacob Ward, why is it significant that the Court ruled it was the design of the platform such as features like the "Like" button not the content people post or algorithms?

WHAT STUDENTS CAN DO

• Learn more about Section 230: Read the excerpt from the segment by Rip Current's Jacob Ward again:

"...the big thing here, John, right, is that they have been protected behind both the First Amendment and something called Section 230, which is a big blanket immunity for social media companies, makes them not liable for the crazy stuff that you and I might post there.

That has been the core of the defense, the big legal wall built around them forever. Suddenly, these two cases, which step around those issues, and get into the question of design and behavior modification by design, suddenly, we're in a very new landscape that I think these companies are going to have a very difficult time arguing against."

• Read the article What you should know about Section 230, the rule that shaped today's internet or conduct your own research to learn more about Section 230 and arguments for and against keeping this statute in place.
• Next, watch this clip of FBI director Kash Patel warning about 'radicalizing' and 'addictive' nature of social media (Sept. 2025, 4 mins), which also mentions Section 230.

Sign up to receive our weekly newsletter with Daily News Lessons and community events.

To provide feedback on News Hour Classroom's resources, including this lesson, click here.