On Tuesday, a New Mexico jury found that Meta had violated state law, misleading users about safety measures and engaging in “unconscionable” trade practices to take advantage of young users, earning it a $375 million penalty. The next day, in a closely watched bellwether trial in California, a jury found that the “negligence” of Google and Meta had been a factor in the past mental-health struggles of a 20-year-old plaintiff, ordering the companies to pay her $3 million, with punitive damages still to come.

On their own, these numbers mean nothing to two of the largest companies in the world. But the legal theories behind these cases, and the signal they both send about future litigation and regulation, could be enormously consequential. The courts are starting to treat social platforms not as purveyors of protected speech — a safe legal haven for internet companies over for the last two decades — but rather like tobacco companies or asbestos manufacturers, firms whose products are obviously addictive, or dangerous, or marketed in misleading ways.

The New Mexico case focused on child safety and involved investigators setting up underage decoy accounts that prosecutors said were flooded with interest from predatory Facebook users. As a former Meta engineer testified during the trial: “The product is very good at connecting people with interests, and if your interest is little girls, it will be really good at connecting you with little girls.” (Meta’s head of communications responded to the verdict, saying the company “will continue to........

© Daily Intelligencer