Meta tries to limit liabilities in child harm cases

Listen to the article 3 min

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Meta is seeking to avoid further restrictions and penalties related to child harm cases in California as the state considers new regulations that are designed to hold social media apps accountable for their impact on young users.

The case stems from a March ruling that said social media platforms can be addictive and can have significant health impacts on users. In that trial, a Los Angeles superior court judge ruled that Meta and YouTube would have to pay $6 million in damages to a single defendant.

That case opened up all social media platforms to significant liabilities, and now, Meta is seeking to side-step any related claims by pushing for a means to protect itself from future liabilities.    

As reported by Politco: “Meta is pushing California state lawmakers to shield it from pending legislation that would increase legal penalties in child-harm cases, according to two people familiar with the effort. The people, granted anonymity to discuss private negotiations, told POLITICO that lobbyists for Meta have approached Senate Judiciary Chair and Santa Ana Democrat Tom Umberg with draft amendments that would create a pathway for social media companies to gain an exemption from the legislation, AB 2.”

The AB 2 bill would make all social media platforms liable for specified damages “if the social media platform fails to exercise ordinary care or skill by causing injury to a child,” per the text of the proposed bill.

If it’s approved, the bill would see platforms fined up to $1 million per child if the platform were found to have failed to meet enhanced protective requirements.

Meta is now seeking to use its lobbying power to dilute any such impacts, as it looks to broaden its emphasis on political advocacy to support its expanding efforts.

According to Open Secrets, which tracks political spending by corporations, Meta has increased its spending on political lobbying every year, reaching $26.3 million in 2025.

A lot of the focus has been on opposing foreign regulation and influencing tech policy, with artificial intelligence rules now a major focus for the business.

But local policy impacts are also within this scope, and Meta is pushing to use its power and influence to ease its path through the regulatory process and avoid excessive liabilities.

However, many would argue that Meta should have to pay damages for its impact on young users, and the fact that the company wants to use its political influence should be discouraged.

But logically, Meta will avoid paying penalties where it can, and given the hundreds of billions of dollars it’s sinking into future-facing development, Meta needs to consider all avenues for cost mitigation.