Why Fines Alone Won’t Make Social Media Safer For Kids

The question before the court in New Mexico is therefore not just whether harms occurred, but what interventions are most likely to reduce those harms going forward. The case is being watched closely by thousands of plaintiffs, and by social media companies engaged in litigation. The decisions ordered here could influence cases for years to come.

A recently released framework aims to answer exactly this question. Developed by the Knight-Georgetown Institute, Tech Justice Law, and the USC Marshall Neely Center, the framework draws on lessons from nearly 100 prior remedies across public health, consumer protection, civil rights, and technology-related cases, and offers a practical, evidence-based roadmap for how courts can ensure safer online experiences. The remedies fit into three categories: harm prevention, harm mitigation, and governance.

Preventing harm caused by social media means changing the product features and design choices that can negatively impact young users. If the New Mexico court determines that Meta’s platform has created a hazard to public health and safety, effective solutions should prohibit unsafe designs, restrict data collection from minors, and prohibit the collection and use of minors’ personal data for targeted advertising. These interventions can be effective at preventing harms because they proactively change designs that hurt consumers without requiring judgments about specific content or users.