Social media’s impact on young people is coming under a powerful legal spotlight, as two major legal battles—one in Colorado and another in California’s Sonoma County—take aim at the world’s largest tech companies. At the heart of these cases are questions about mental health, government regulation, and the responsibilities of tech giants toward the youth who use their platforms every day.
In Colorado, lawmakers are pushing for new rules that would require social media platforms to warn young users about the dangers of excessive screen time. On January 1, 2026, House Bill 24-1136 is set to take effect, mandating that companies like Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat display warnings to users under 18 if they spend more than an hour on the platform within a 24-hour period or are active between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. These warnings, which must pop up every 30 minutes, are intended to inform teens about research on how social media can affect brain development.
But the tech industry isn’t taking this lying down. NetChoice, a group representing major players such as Meta, has filed a federal lawsuit to block the law before it goes into effect. According to The New York Sun, the group argues that the law would force companies to act as a “mouthpiece” for the government, compelling them to deliver state-approved messages. “At its core, this case is about one thing: compelled speech. Colorado is trying to force private websites to act as a mouthpiece for its preferred message,” said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. He added, “The government is free to share its views on any topic, but it cannot force private businesses to speak for it.”
The lawsuit claims the law is not only vague about what counts as a “social media platform,” but also forces companies to push controversial claims about the effects of social media on minors’ mental and physical health through burdensome notifications. NetChoice has a history of challenging similar laws, such as those requiring age verification for social media users. In a recent development, the Supreme Court declined to block an age verification law in Mississippi, allowing it to take effect for now, as reported by The New York Sun.
Supporters of the Colorado law believe the stakes are too high to ignore. State Senator Judy Amabile, a co-sponsor of the bill, insists that the dangers of “doomscrolling”—endless scrolling through negative content—are real and growing. “The longer teens spend doom scrolling on social media, the higher their chances of experiencing anxiety, depression, and emotional distress. Coloradans recognize that social media presents a growing public health problem for our youth, and they want their leaders to take action,” Amabile stated, according to The New York Sun.
Backing her up is Jake Williams, CEO of Healthier Colorado, who says, “Our kids have been treated as guinea pigs in a profit-driven experiment by big tech. The results are in: social media use poses serious risks to youth mental health.” Williams argues that the law is a “common-sense approach” that empowers families to make informed decisions, without restricting what teens can actually view online. “Social media companies are not entitled to unfettered access to our kids’ brains,” he said.
Public sentiment appears to be on the side of regulation. A poll commissioned by Healthier Colorado found that 69 percent of Colorado voters support the new law, and a staggering 90 percent believe social media negatively impacts youth mental health. The issue isn’t confined to Colorado, either—other states are considering similar measures. California’s senate is debating a bill that would require warning labels after three hours of cumulative social media use, Minnesota has already passed a law mandating mental health warnings every time a user logs in, and New York’s legislature sent a similar bill to the governor in June 2025.
While Colorado’s law focuses on warning labels, Sonoma County in California is taking a more aggressive approach. On July 9, 2025, county officials filed a federal lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act against a slew of social media companies—including Meta, Instagram, TikTok, Snap, Google, Discord, YouTube, and Roblox. The county alleges that these companies’ business practices have harmed the mental health of approximately 94,000 local minors, contributing to “distraction, depression, and suicidality.”
The lawsuit, as reported by The Press Democrat, details distressing incidents: a 9-year-old girl experiencing suicidal thoughts after being bullied on a YouTube hate page; a youth behavioral health client who received a rape threat from an adult male; and another youth who, after expressing suicidal thoughts, was offered a gun for purchase on Snapchat. The county’s Mobile Support Team, which provides crisis intervention, responded when a 16-year-old girl physically attacked her mother after her cellphone and social media access were threatened. Since 2021, Sonoma County schools have also faced online threats of violence and vandalism fueled by social media trends, such as the “devious licks” TikTok craze.
As a result, county agencies have ramped up youth mental health services, expanding therapy, crisis intervention, and medication support. The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for these increased costs, as well as legal fees. “A whole array of experts” will testify that social media companies contributed to these incidents, said Aelish Baig, an attorney with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, the law firm handling Sonoma County’s case. Baig noted that the first set of related jury trials is likely to begin in 2026 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California, overseen by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. While Sonoma County’s case might not be among the first tried, outcomes in these “bellwether cases” could set the tone for all similar lawsuits.
For Lynda Hopkins, chair of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and a mother of three, the issue is personal. She told The Press Democrat that reading Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Anxious Generation” opened her eyes to the dangers lurking online. “We live in a society where we literally have neighbors who will call and report you for child abuse for letting your kids walk down the block by themselves, but they’re allowed to roam free in the dark corners of the internet,” Hopkins remarked.
Sonoma County isn’t going it alone. Its lawsuit is part of a broader movement by local governments and states to hold social media companies accountable. In 2023, California’s Attorney General joined 32 other states in suing Meta and its affiliates. The law firm Robbins Geller, which secured a $650 million settlement with Facebook over facial recognition technology in 2020, an $800 million settlement with Twitter over securities fraud in 2021, and a $350 million settlement with Alphabet after a 2024 data breach, is spearheading Sonoma’s case on a contingency basis. If the county wins or settles, it stands to recoup most of its legal costs and a significant portion of any proceeds.
As these legal battles unfold, the question remains: how far should society go to protect young people from the pitfalls of social media, and who should bear the responsibility—tech companies, government, or parents? With court dates looming and public pressure mounting, the answers may soon set new precedents for the digital age.
