The huddle: How can we prevent the harms of social media addiction?

As a US court ruled that Meta and Google were liable for a young woman becoming addicted to social media, Holyrood asked experts whether they agree with the court and what should we do to prevent these harms?

Deborah Fry, global director of data, Global Child Safety Institute

Yes, the court was right, and the significance goes far beyond one case. This feels like a “big tobacco” moment for tech: a recognition that harm to children is not accidental, but often a consequence of design. When platforms use autoplay, infinite scroll and notifications to maximise engagement, we shouldn’t be surprised when children become addicted or exposed to risk.

But litigation alone won’t fix this. Every major public health advance – from seatbelts to tobacco control – required regulation that changed the rules of the game. We need the same here: a clear duty of care on platforms, independent oversight, and enforcement that prioritises prevention, not just detection after harm occurs.

This is a public health issue, not just a tech one, and the health consequences are enormous. Prevention also means ensuring children have genuine choices about how they spend their time, rather than being steered by highly optimised technology. Safer systems and more balanced childhoods should go hand in hand.

Ellen Roome, bereaved mother and online safety campaigner for Jools’ Law

Yes, the court was right. This judgment marks the beginning of a long-overdue shift in accountability. For too long, social media companies have been treated as passive hosts, when in reality their platforms are designed systems that shape behaviour, particularly in children.
The harms we are now seeing are not isolated incidents; they are the foreseeable consequences of business models built on maximising attention. That places a clear responsibility on both industry and government.

The UK now faces a choice. We can continue to rely on voluntary measures and delayed consultations or we can act decisively. That means setting a minimum age of 16 for high-risk platforms, enforcing effective age verification and regulating addictive design features, not just illegal content.

We have long accepted the need to regulate industries that pose risks to children. The digital environment should be no exception.

Alongside regulation, we must also invest in real-world alternatives – sport, youth services and community spaces – so children have safer, healthier ways to connect and thrive.

Jillian van Turnhout, former chair of the Online Health Taskforce, Dept of Health, Ireland, and former independent senator, Seanad Éireann

I welcome the court’s decision. For too long, the burden of protection has fallen on children, parents, and teachers while platforms engineered products for maximum engagement and walked away from the consequences. This judgment shifts that narrative.

When Ireland held its first National Youth Assembly on Youth Online Health last year, young people were unequivocal: platforms are designed to keep them hooked, and adults in power aren’t doing enough about it. They called not for bans, but for accountability.

Ireland’s Online Health Taskforce, which I chaired, looked carefully at the full range of options. The evidence points to structural solutions: age-appropriate design baked in from the start, not bolted on afterwards; algorithms that don’t push harmful content to young users; age classification so children aren’t accessing platforms built for adults; and personal accountability for executives when regulations are breached. And critically, investment in what replaces the scroll – sport, arts, youth clubs, community spaces. Things that tell a young person they matter offline too.

Mary Glasgow, chief executive, Children First

The court was right to call out big tech for their deliberate and sustained choice to harm children. They know their products are addictive by design and they know how dangerous they are. As the London coroner found following the tragic death of 14-year-old Molly Russell, the risks can be fatal.

It’s apt to call this a “big tobacco” moment. We tackled smoking harms as a public health issue. We must reduce online harm the same way. Smart phones, social media, apps and gaming platforms are inherently unsafe. We can’t retrofit them to make them safe or expect children to bear the burden of protecting themselves online. We need safety by design and robust regulation backed by a long-term public health campaign and increased funding for offline alternatives that support children’s development such as youth clubs, sports, outdoor spaces and creative activities.

Ian Kelleher, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, University of Edinburgh  

Childhood social media overuse doesn’t happen in a bubble. Adults are equally dependent on screens and smart devices, so while children require particular consideration, it would be naïve to think we can simply regulate this problem away for children alone. If we’re serious about harm reduction, we need to tackle the addictive design features affecting all users, not just limit use for under-18s.

We don’t regulate drugs only for children, we regulate them across all of society. The same principle should apply here: stronger design standards, greater transparency, and appropriate limits on manipulative features that drive compulsive use. This period will likely be looked back upon as the “Wild West” of the digital era and people will wonder how meaningful safeguards were not put in place sooner. Products with the potential to create dependence, whether pharmaceuticals or digital platforms, require robust regulation.

Syd, Girlguiding Scotland young spokesperson, 17 years old

As a young person and Girlguiding Scotland spokesperson, I welcome the need for a national conversation about the impact of social media on young people. The Girls’ Attitudes Survey found that 69 per cent of girls aged 11-16 believe social media is a major reason more girls are experiencing mental health issues. We recognise the risks online spaces can pose, particularly for girls. 

The current proposed measures to prevent these harms, eg the ban for under-16s, fails to reflect the complexity of the issue or the reality of how young people live today. Girlguiding research found that only 15 per cent of 15-16-year-olds believe a ban would make them feel safer. Young people aren’t asking for bans, they’re asking to be listened to. Rather than removing access entirely, the government must take responsibility by stepping up to hold platforms and perpetrators accountable. This means stronger regulation, clearer protections, and genuinely including young people’s voices in shaping safer online environments, something we champion in our manifesto,  ‘Scotland: for girls, by girls’.

Dr Amrit Kaur Purba, assistant professor, Digital Determinants of Health Hub, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

The court’s decision reflects a growing recognition that digital environments are not neutral, they are designed systems that shape behaviour, particularly in children. While “addiction” is a complex and contested term, there is credible evidence that harmful content and algorithmic systems, from infinite scroll to personalised recommendation feeds, can reinforce compulsive use and normalise risk behaviours.

From a public health perspective, this is why social media must be treated as a digital determinant of health. At the Digital Determinants of Health Hub, my focus is on moving beyond correlation to generate causal evidence on how exposure to harmful content, amplified by algorithms, translates into real-world outcomes such as smoking, alcohol use and antisocial behaviour.

The implication is not that social media should be removed, but that it should be made safer – through what we might think of as a form of digital sanitation, where harmful exposures are reduced at source. Responsibility cannot rest solely with parents or children navigating highly engineered systems. We need proportionate regulation that addresses both content and the algorithms that shape its reach, alongside investment in evidence to guide policy. 

At the same time, prevention must offer credible alternatives, from accessible youth clubs and sports to creative programmes and safe social spaces, that complement safer digital environments and give young people meaningful ways to connect, express themselves, and belong offline.

James Baker, Platform Power programme manager, openrightsgroup.org

Recent US litigation finding Meta liable for harmful design and content signals a shift toward assigning legal responsibility at the level of specific features. While this may appear to strengthen corporate accountability, extending liability frameworks risks imposing disproportionate burdens on Scotland’s rich collection of small-scale community-driven digital platforms.

Regulating features could backfire by consolidating market power among dominant big tech firms who are able to comply.

A more proportionate strategy is to regulate the underlying surveillance advertising model that drives harmful design incentives. When profit depends on maximising engagement and data extraction, platforms are structurally pushed toward risky features. Addressing this economic logic targets root causes rather than symptoms.

Additionally, policymakers should support user mobility by enabling interoperability and account portability. Allowing people to switch social media platforms without losing access to their contacts would reduce lock-in, empower users to leave harmful services, and create competitive pressure for safer, more ethical design.