big tobacco – A California verdict against Meta and Google is being framed as a turning point. Misryoum argues it may become another cycle of warnings unless platforms redesign the features linked to harm.
A California jury verdict holding Meta and Google liable is being described as social media’s “big tobacco moment”—a comparison that carries real weight.
But the most important lesson from past corporate accountability cases is not the moral victory headline.. Misryoum suggests the key question now isn’t whether social media will be blamed.. It’s whether the business model will be changed—especially the design choices that keep people engaged even when that engagement becomes harmful.
In the tobacco litigation story, accountability didn’t succeed because cigarettes were simply addictive.. It succeeded because the industry concealed what it knew—about nicotine’s addictive properties and about links between smoking and cancer—and then misled the public for years.. When concealment was exposed and disclosure became mandatory. the legal and political narrative shifted again: once people were told the risks. responsibility was reframed as a personal choice.
A similar arc later shaped the processed-food debate.. Advertising restrictions aimed at protecting children faced fierce resistance. and lawmakers ultimately leaned into a “willpower” storyline—one that underplayed how environment. marketing. and product design influence behavior.. Even when obesity-related concerns were widely discussed, industry efforts frequently redirected the debate toward individual responsibility rather than product redesign.
Misryoum sees last month’s verdict being celebrated as a break from that pattern. yet the aftermath could still drift toward familiar territory.. The parallels are straightforward: companies can respond to legal findings with age gates. parental controls. warning disclosures. and other notice-and-consent tools that place the burden of managing risk on users (or their parents).. Those steps may reduce harm at the margins, but they often leave the core architecture of engagement intact.
Age verification systems and push-notification settings sound technical—and they are—but the underlying premise is behavioral: a platform that is engineered to be difficult to put down is treated as manageable if individuals are given enough tools and reminders.. Misryoum’s concern is that this “fix” strategy can function as legal triage.. It satisfies the idea of reform through information and controls. while the jury’s central finding points toward something more fundamental: the design itself.
There’s a counterargument that redesigning social platforms could damage their value for everyone.. Misryoum believes that objection often merges two things that should be separated: the product and its most harmful features.. Social media does not need algorithmically optimized push alerts to help people keep in touch with friends.. Nor does it require the engagement systems tuned to maximize time-on-platform beyond what many users would choose if they had complete control.
This is where the tobacco and processed-food comparisons matter for economics and governance.. Product liability law has long distinguished between warning defects and design defects.. A warning defect is one where the product is dangerous. but safer use may be possible if users are properly informed.. A design defect is different: the product itself is unreasonably dangerous, so labeling alone cannot cure it.
Misryoum’s reading of the situation is that courts now face a fork in the road.. If the legal system treats the verdict as primarily a prompt for better warnings and consumer controls. the likely outcome is partial mitigation without structural change.. If. however. the finding is treated as a design mandate—something closer to “make the product safer”—then social media companies would need to revisit the specific mechanics tied to harm. not just the surrounding guardrails.
For families and teenagers, the practical stakes are immediate.. Tools and settings can help. but they require constant attention. ongoing configuration. and often parental involvement—conditions that don’t exist in a vacuum.. Misryoum sees the risk that “reform by settings” becomes a shifting burden: instead of redesigning a system that pulls users in. society asks individuals to continuously manage their exposure to it.
Economically, that distinction influences incentives.. When legal pressure can be resolved through disclosures. companies have a path of least resistance: compliance that is cheaper than redesign.. But if liability increasingly tracks design choices—especially those that intensify addictive patterns—then engineering teams. product roadmaps. and revenue strategies may have to change.
The verdict may have cracked open the door. but Misryoum expects the real test will arrive with subsequent litigation. regulatory action. and legislation.. The next phase will determine whether social media’s accountability resembles meaningful product redesign—or whether the post-verdict era becomes a familiar cycle of warnings. disclosure. and personal responsibility framing that leaves the most harmful features untouched.