A Stanford academic compared Meta’s social media design to a “drug” for young users during court proceedings in New Mexico this week, sharpening a legal fight over whether the company’s products harm children. The testimony came in a lawsuit brought by the state, which argues that products such as Instagram deploy features that hook minors and contribute to mental health problems.
The case centers on design choices and product policies at the tech giant’s platforms. State lawyers say those choices create compulsive use. Meta disputes that claim and points to safety tools and parental controls. The outcome could shape how social media firms build products for teens across the United States.
Testimony in New Mexico Court
The Stanford expert described engagement features as addictive, highlighting how they may affect developing brains. The researcher said the design encourages repeated checking and prolonged sessions, which can crowd out sleep, schoolwork, and in-person time.
“Meta’s social media features are addictive like a ‘drug,’ especially for youth,” the expert testified.
According to the testimony, these mechanisms work by offering quick rewards and variable feedback. That feedback loop can lead some teens to spend far more time online than they intend.
What the State Alleges
New Mexico’s lawsuit argues that Meta intentionally built systems to maximize engagement among minors without adequate safeguards. The state says this amounts to unfair business practices and endangers youth well-being.
- Endless feeds and autoplay that reduce stopping points
- Algorithmic recommendations tailored to keep users scrolling
- Push notifications that trigger frequent re-engagement
- Social comparison tools, such as likes and follower counts
State attorneys say these features can increase anxiety, amplify social pressure, and reduce sleep. They also allege that company policies have not kept pace with risks to younger users.
Meta’s Response and Industry Context
Meta has maintained that its platforms are designed to connect people and that it invests heavily in youth safety. The company points to default privacy settings for teens, time management tools, content filters, and parental supervision features. It also says it removes harmful content and works with outside experts on product changes.
The company argues that no single factor explains trends in teen mental health. It points to mixed research findings and says many young people report positive experiences, including support communities and creative outlets.
The legal battle in New Mexico follows a series of actions by officials around the country. In recent years, coalitions of state attorneys general have filed lawsuits accusing major platforms of steering teens into excessive use. Lawmakers in several states have proposed or passed age-verification rules, default curfews, or limits on personalized feeds for minors.
Evidence and Research Landscape
Public health leaders have warned that youth social media use can pose risks, particularly when it replaces sleep and offline activities or exposes teens to bullying and harmful content. Surveys show rising reports of anxiety and sadness among teens over the past decade, though experts disagree on how much social media contributes.
Academic studies cited in court debates often point to design features that reward frequent engagement. At the same time, other research notes benefits such as peer connection and access to information. Much of the data is correlational, leaving cause and effect unsettled.
The Stanford expert’s testimony sought to connect product design to compulsive behavior patterns. The description of an addiction-like response reflects a growing focus on how variable rewards, streaks, and social metrics can shape habits, especially in younger users.
Potential Industry Impact
A ruling that favors New Mexico could push platforms to reduce engagement triggers for teens, limit algorithmic amplification, or add stronger default time caps. It could also prompt new disclosures to parents and regulators about how features are tested and monitored for youth risks.
If the court sides with Meta, the decision may slow similar lawsuits and shift attention back to legislative solutions, industry standards, and parental oversight tools. Either way, companies face continued pressure to show that their safeguards work.
The New Mexico case is poised to test how courts weigh design intent, research evidence, and real-world outcomes for teens. For families, the immediate takeaway is practical: use app-level time limits, turn off nonessential notifications, and talk with kids about how features influence habits. For the industry, the next steps may hinge on whether jurists accept the “drug-like” framing or favor Meta’s argument that design is not the cause. Observers will watch for any order that mandates product changes or expanded reporting on youth impacts.
