The Legal Cases Against Social Media's Do No Harm
Psychology Today
by Phil Reed D.Phil.February 25, 2026
AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary
Recent legal cases against social media companies have sparked debates over their role in mental health issues, particularly regarding whether their platforms are designed with harmful intent or if they exacerbate existing conditions. The defense often argues that pre-existing mental health problems are the primary factor, suggesting that social media use is not to blame. However, this argument has been criticized as flawed, as it ignores the potential for social media to worsen mental health even in individuals who were previously struggling.
One key issue is determining whether social media directly contributes to mental health decline or if it merely accelerates an existing problem. This requires longitudinal data to assess changes in mental health before and after social media use. While challenging, this analysis could help establish whether the platforms have a causal role in worsening conditions. Additionally, comparing social media to other products like guns or knives highlights a moral dilemma: should companies be held responsible for harm caused by their products, especially when they target vulnerable groups?
The defense’s argument also raises ethical concerns. By shifting blame onto individuals with pre-existing vulnerabilities, companies avoid accountability for designing potentially harmful tools. This mirrors tactics used by industries like insurance to evade payouts but is particularly problematic in the context of mental health. The idea that social media could be addictive and exacerbate mental health issues complicates the matter
Verticals
healthmental-health
Originally published on Psychology Today on 2/25/2026