Children and Consumer Product Design and Safety
This evening’s chat with ChatGPT began with today’s headline that may ultimately redefine the legal architecture of the internet.
By Sally Vazquez-Castellanos
Published on March 25, 2026 at 7:52 pm.
As discussed earlier, California jury has delivered what many are calling a landmark verdict against Meta and Google, finding both companies liable for the design of their platforms and the harms allegedly suffered by a young user.
The decision—arising from litigation involving addictive product design and youth mental health—signals a meaningful shift in how courts, regulators, and the public may begin to evaluate social media platforms.
At its core, the case deals with a complex question. It is a shift from concerns over content, and begins to address product design.
The jury found that platforms such as Instagram and YouTube were negligently designed and failed to warn users of associated risks, awarding damages against both companies. (VA Lawyers Weekly)
That distinction matters.
From Publisher to Product: A Legal Shift
For decades, technology companies have relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to argue that they are not liable for third-party content. This case reflects a growing legal strategy that avoids that shield entirely.
Instead, plaintiffs—and increasingly juries—are focusing on:
a. Algorithmic amplification.
b. Addictive design features (infinite scroll, notifications).
c. Behavioral targeting of minors.
This is not a speech case. It is a product liability case.
And that shift—from speech to structure—may prove decisive.
The Design Code Movement: California and Maryland
The verdict does not exist in isolation. It sits within a broader legislative trend: the emergence of Age-Appropriate Design Codes (AADC) in the United States.
California: The First Mover (and First Battleground)
California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AB 2273)—passed in 2022—attempted to impose a sweeping duty on platforms “likely to be accessed by children.”
Key features include:
Age estimation requirements.
Default high privacy settings for minors.
Mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) evaluating risks to children (Wikipedia).
However, the law has faced significant constitutional challenges.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a mixed ruling—allowing parts of the law to move forward while striking or limiting others due to concerns over vagueness and First Amendment implications. (Holland & Knight)
This tension is critical:
How far can the state go in regulating design without infringing on speech?
Maryland: A Refined Approach
Maryland followed with its own Age-Appropriate Design Code, taking effect in 2024 and requiring compliance measures by 2026.
The Maryland framework:
Imposes a duty to act in the “best interests of children.” Requires DPIAs for products accessible to minors. Mandates high privacy settings by default. Restricts collection of sensitive data and targeted advertising to children.
Importantly, Maryland explicitly ties enforcement to consumer protection and UDAP principles, signaling a convergence between privacy law and unfair business practices.
Yet Maryland is not immune to challenge.
The same constitutional concerns raised in California—particularly around vague standards like “best interests”—are already emerging. (Holland & Knight)
A Convergence: Litigation Meets Regulation
What makes this moment notable is the alignment of three forces:
Jury Verdicts (Common Law Evolution) Courts are beginning to recognize design-based harms State Legislation (California, Maryland, and beyond).
Codifying a duty of care to children. Global Influence (UK Children’s Code, GDPR principles)
Embedding “privacy by design” and “safety by design”
Together, these forces suggest the emergence of a new legal standard:
Platforms may be judged not only by what they host—but by how they are built.
Implications for Industry and Law
Increased exposure to negligence and product liability claims. Pressure to redesign interfaces that encourage compulsive use. Greater scrutiny of algorithmic decision-making.
For lawmakers and courts:
The challenge becomes balancing innovation, free expression, and child safety The doctrinal boundary between speech and design will define the next decade of litigation
For practitioners—particularly those working across privacy, family law, and technology—this shift raises a deeper question:
What does it mean to act in the “best interests of the child” in a digital environment?
Closing Reflection
The jury’s verdict is not the end of this story. Appeals will follow. Statutes will be challenged. Definitions will be refined.
But something fundamental has changed.
The law is beginning to see social media platforms not as passive conduits—but as engineered environments capable of harm.
And once design is placed on trial, accountability becomes a matter of architecture—not just content.
Sources
Reuters, Meta and Google liable in social media harm case (Mar. 25, 2026) (VA Lawyers Weekly)
K.G.M. v. Meta et al. case summary (Wikipedia)
National Law Review, Age-Appropriate Design Code Laws (National Law Review)
Troutman Pepper, Maryland Age-Appropriate Design Code (Troutman Pepper Locke)
Holland & Knight, Ninth Circuit ruling on CA Design Code (Holland & Knight)
California AADC (AB 2273) (Wikipedia)
Legal Disclaimer
This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed. Readers should consult qualified counsel regarding their specific legal circumstances.
Copyright and Neural Privacy Notice
© 2026 Sally Vazquez-Castellanos. All rights reserved.
This work reflects ongoing analysis of privacy, cognitive liberty, and emerging legal protections against technological manipulation.
Unauthorized use, reproduction, or exploitation of the author’s original insights—including in connection with AI training or behavioral modeling—is expressly prohibited.