A small dog named Draco spends his days watching for signs that his owner, 24-year-old Alexis Spence, might harm herself. He was trained to intervene during panic attacks and self-harm episodes — a direct legacy of the mental health crisis Alexis says began when she opened her first Instagram account at age 11, two years before the platform’s own minimum age requirement allowed it. Alexis says the platform’s algorithm pushed her from ordinary weight-loss content into material promoting eating disorders, and by 15 she was receiving emergency psychiatric treatment.
Alexis is one of the clients we represent in our lawsuit against Meta, and her story sits at the center of a much bigger question playing out on the world stage: as country after country moves to restrict children’s access to social media, why is the United States still on the sidelines?
A global wave the US hasn't joined
Since Australia’s ban on social media accounts for anyone under 16 took effect last December, the policy has set off a chain reaction. The UK, Canada, and Indonesia have announced plans to follow, and the European Union said this week it will develop its own age-restriction policy across all 27 member states.
The United States — home to the very platforms these countries are regulating — has no equivalent national law. What exists is a patchwork: a bill for a national ban on under-13 social media use has sat before Congress since last June without a vote, and the House recently passed a narrower measure requiring platforms to limit “compulsive usage” design features and give parents more account controls. Its future in the Senate is uncertain, and attorneys-general from 44 states and territories have formally opposed it, warning that it could shield tech companies from accountability rather than protect kids.
In the absence of that national action, we’ve watched families like the Spences step forward to pursue a different route to accountability: the courts.
Alexis’s mother, Kathleen Spence, doesn’t mince words about who she holds responsible.
Our Founder, Matthew Bergman, on Building the Legal Case the US Hasn't
Alexis’s family isn’t fighting Meta alone — they’re one part of the much larger legal effort we’ve built at the Social Media Victims Law Center. Our founder, Matthew Bergman, is currently representing more than 1,200 clients across the country’s growing wave of social media addiction lawsuits — including families in Australia. His work has extended beyond the courtroom: Bergman recently advised British officials as the UK developed its own version of a youth social media ban.
Bergman argues that raising the age at which children can access these platforms is not about shielding kids from the internet forever — it’s about giving their brains time to catch up to the design choices built to hook them.
For Bergman, the case against the platforms isn’t complicated.
He also pushed back directly on one of the more common criticisms of Australia’s ban — that plenty of teenagers have found ways around it. To Bergman, that workaround rate isn’t evidence the policy is failing; it’s evidence of exactly what the industry is up against.
His view of what actually changes corporate behavior is blunt: legislation without real financial consequences won’t move platforms built for engagement and profit.
Asked what a US ban modeled on Australia’s could achieve, Bergman was direct.
That philosophy — that meaningful deterrence requires meaningful cost — is the throughline connecting the more than 1,200 cases we’re pursuing on behalf of families like the Spences.
Courts Are Already Weighing In
Earlier this year, a California jury found Meta and Google liable for $3 million in damages — plus a further $3 million in punitive damages — after a 20-year-old woman sued the companies over addictive platform design. The court concluded the companies knew, or should have known, about the risk their platforms posed to minors. Meta has since filed a notice of appeal, telling reporters that teen mental health is too complex to attribute to any single app.
What Comes Next
We expect the California verdict to shape how hundreds of pending cases against social media companies are argued and decided. For families still waiting on their own day in court, it’s an early signal that juries are willing to hold these platforms accountable for how they’re built — not just how they’re used.
Alexis Spence, now awaiting the outcome of her own case, put it simply: society already restricts access to cigarettes and gambling based on age. There’s no equivalent restriction, she says, for the algorithms designed to hook children before they’re old enough to understand what’s happening to them.
Until Congress closes that gap, we believe the cases we and other firms are building on behalf of families may be the clearest path the US has toward the kind of accountability other countries are already writing into law.
What to Do If You Believe Your Child or Teen is Addicted to Social Media
If your child or teen is struggling with anxiety, depression, disordered eating, self-harm, or suicidal thoughts that you believe are tied to their social media use, you are not alone — and you may have legal options. We are currently representing more than 1,200 families across the country in cases against Meta, Google, TikTok, Snapchat, and other platforms accused of designing products that exploit young users.
Our attorneys can help you understand whether your family’s experience may qualify for a social media addiction lawsuit, what evidence matters, and what accountability could look like for your family.
Contact the Social Media Victims Law Center today for a free, confidential case review.
