After years of failed attempts, prosecutors have finally brought Meta to court, and the shift in legal strategy is proving decisive. Investigative journalist Katy McQue, who has spent years reporting on the potential harms Meta's platforms pose to children, explains that the new approach focuses not on the content Meta publishes, but on the very design of its platforms.
Three landmark cases against Meta
In 2026, three landmark cases have brought Meta to trial in the US. The first, in New Mexico, cited McQue's reporting on child sexual exploitation. The second, in California, concerns the mental health harms to young people. Last week, an unprecedented case was settled by Meta for $18bn.
According to McQue, these cases represent a turning point. For years, despite the mountain of evidence compiled by journalists, prosecutors, and bereaved families, it had been nearly impossible to bring Meta and other social media companies to court.
The new argument: platform design, not content
In all three cases, prosecutors have found a new way to argue against Meta. The argument is based not on the content it publishes, but on the very design of its platforms. This shift in legal tactics appears to be the key to unlocking the courtroom doors.
McQue explained to Annie Kelly that this design-based approach is what has finally changed the legal landscape. The cases in New Mexico, California, and the $18bn settlement all rely on this novel legal theory.
Impact on Meta and the tech industry
The $18bn settlement last week is unprecedented, signaling a major financial and reputational blow to Meta. The outcome of the California case on mental health harms could set a precedent for future litigation against other social media companies.
As prosecutors continue to refine this design-based argument, the legal pressure on Meta is likely to intensify. The cases mark a significant shift in how social media platforms may be held accountable for the harms associated with their products.
