This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on January 30th, 2026. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

Is social media harmful to young people? After thousands of lawsuits in the US, a jury is now set to rule on the question. The outcome could have enormous consequences for the tech companies.

Jonathan Haidt has become a somewhat unexpected superstar in the world. Since the social psychologist released the book “The Anxious Generation” in spring 2024, he has barely left the spotlight. In it you can read about how smartphones and the lack of free play are harming children and young people.

“You have to separate the internet from social media,” he says in an interview with the New York Times. Social media is, according to him, “one of the worst parts — the one that harms children most.” Is it that simple?

Critics of the book argue that Haidt primarily points to correlation rather than causation. But while that debate continues, the question is soon to receive a different kind of answer: a legal one.

This week a lawsuit against social media companies began — the first of its kind — following thousands of claims against companies including Meta, Snap, YouTube, and TikTok.

All eyes are now on the case, with a single 19-year-old woman as the plaintiff, to see whether the jury chooses to acquit or convict.

In recent years, everyone from prosecutors to school districts and individuals has alleged something similar: that social media makes children depressed, gives them anxiety, or causes them to develop self-harming behaviour.

The question has been discussed and remained topical for a long time, but has never been proven in a legal sense. The coming weeks will therefore be of the highest interest to the entire world. Is it possible to hold social media companies responsible for young people’s mental health?

As for Snap and TikTok, we will not get any answers this time — they have already settled out of court. In TikTok’s case, as recently as the day before the trial was due to begin. No details about the terms of the settlement have been communicated.

Meta and YouTube remain as named defendants and will need to testify. The respective companies’ top executives — Mark Zuckerberg and Neal Mohan — are expected to appear.

There are primarily two questions the jury must rule on.

The first is whether features the companies have built into their services have contributed negatively to young people’s wellbeing. In SvD’s own article series “Svältalgoritmen” (“The Starvation Algorithm”), it was shown how young people were served content that encouraged starvation and eating disorders — even though they had not actively searched for it.

Algorithms prioritise what they think you will watch, not necessarily what you are actually looking for and want. Features such as new videos playing automatically after others — without you actively choosing them — are another example. Could this have led to people being shown videos they did not want?

The second question is connected to a couple of sentences from an American law that tech giants have sheltered behind for many years — what is known as “Section 230.”

In simplified terms, it means that tech companies are not responsible for material that is uploaded to, or created on, their platforms. Video uploaded to TikTok is therefore not TikTok’s responsibility — it falls on the person who uploaded it in the first place.

For many years, Section 230 has given tech companies robust legal protection. The law dates from 1996 and the relevant part consists of just 26 words. Both Democrats and Republicans have threatened over the years to repeal it. Both Biden and Trump have said they want to remove it. But nothing has happened yet.

The verdict in this case could create an opening. Can social media companies be held accountable for the content on their platforms after all? Directly or indirectly? Such a ruling could be a breakthrough, and would likely trigger an avalanche of further cases of a similar nature.

Whatever the outcome, you can expect nothing but appeals and delays before a result is fully confirmed and settled. But the trial will be watched closely by both tech giants and their critics. Many have hinted, argued, and speculated as to whether it is social media’s fault that young people are suffering so much.

Soon we will at least have a legal answer to that question.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”