BY THE WAY: Is Digital Addiction Threat to Mental Health?
Perhaps the biggest debate in the coming years will not be ‘Should children be kept away from social media?’ But rather, ‘How safe should social media be made for children, and who should be legally responsible for its safety?’
Dr Noour Ali Zehgeer
If it was connecting with Family and friends or keeping yourself updated what is happening around the world, it was acceptable in the digital age. The question is bigger and critical, the excessive and uncontrolled use of social media can adversely affect mental health, sleep, and lifestyle; caution is essential. In the digital age, accountability is essential for parents, as well as platform designers, tech companies, regulators, and the government.
Globally, social media is no longer just a means of communication in our lives. Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, and other digital platforms have become a part of our daily lives for information, entertainment, business, education, politics, and social interaction. But with this convenience, serious questions are increasingly being raised: Has excessive and uncontrolled use of social media also become a public health issue? Just as cigarettes, bidis, tobacco, and alcohol were once considered merely personal choices, but over time, it was recognized that their ill effects are not limited to the individual.
Similarly, the question of companies’ accountability regarding the design, algorithms, and harmful content of social media platforms is now being raised. Growing legal and regulatory activity in the US, Europe, Australia, and India, particularly regarding the mental health of children and adolescents, indicates that the journey from “personal choice” to “corporate accountability” has begun in the digital world. I, Advocate Kishan Sanmukhdas Bhawnani, Gondia, Maharashtra, believe that statutory warnings, like those for cigarettes, are necessary on social media. Should Instagram, Facebook, and other social media platforms state, “Excessive use can be harmful to mental health?” In my opinion, instead of rejecting this concept entirely, it should be incorporated into modern digital security systems.
However, simply posting warnings is not enough. Just as tobacco requires advertising restrictions, age restrictions, and packaging rules, a multi-layered system is needed for social media. The first step could be clear health and safety warnings for minors. Second, age verification and child-safe default settings. Third, controls on nighttime push notifications and addictive engagement features. Fourth, independent audits of personalized recommendation systems for children. Fifth, ultra-fast detection and removal of CSAM, deepfakes, and sexually exploitative content. Sixth, independent monitoring of companies’ internal risk reports and algorithmic safety assessments. And seventh, financial penalties for violations that do not become merely a “business expense” for the company.
Should Social Media Be Issued Legal Warnings Like Cigarettes, Alcohol, and Tobacco?-
The landmark New Mexico verdict: Legal damages of $942 million (approximately ₹90 billion) and the question of public nuisance. The biggest legal basis for this debate was reached in the US state of New Mexico on August 6, 2026. A jury found Meta Platforms responsible for harming children and misleading consumers about the platform’s safety. In the second phase of the case, Judge Brian Biedscheid ordered Meta Platforms to pay an additional $567 million. This brings the total legal liability from both phases to $942 million. Of this second sum, approximately $420 million will be used for youth mental health treatment, while the remaining funds will be spent on awareness, prevention, screening, and related programs. Previously, on March 24, 2026, a New Mexico jury imposed a civil penalty of $375 million on Meta Platforms, holding it responsible for harming children and misleading consumers about the platform’s safety. The New Mexico Department of Justice called this a historic victory for the state in a trial against a major tech platform.
The most significant aspect of this decision isn’t just the amount of the fine, but the court’s approach to the platform’s social impact. The judge held Meta responsible for causing public nuisance and took a strong stance on the platform’s design and the risks associated with child safety. The court ordered measures such as notifications for minors, age verification, screen-time, and changes to other design features. This is where social media is being brought under legal scrutiny, not just as an app, but its entire commercial design and social impact. An important factual caution is also necessary. It’s not yet a scientifically or legally established conclusion to declare social media as “as harmful as cigarettes.”
However, this comparison is significant because the debate in both cases addresses the question: if the design of a commercial product creates foreseeable harm, can the manufacturer evade responsibility simply by claiming that it was the consumer’s personal choice to use it?
if we consider the August 5, 2026 India connection: Meta’s challenge of content, algorithms, and accountability, then paralleling the legal action in the US, pressure for accountability against Meta has also increased in India. Following high-level discussions between the Indian government and Meta on August 5, 2026, issues related to child safety, harmful content, deepfakes, and operational issues on the platform were discussed. The controversy surrounding the removal of a Facebook video featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi also lent political and regulatory significance to this broader debate. Available reports indicate that Meta intends to continue discussions in India and address algorithmic and legal compliance issues. It is important to distinguish between Mark Zuckerberg’s personal formal apology to the Indian government and Meta’s claims of regret regarding CSAM, deepfakes, and operational errors on the platform. Available public reporting does not fully reflect these incidents. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to conclude that Zuckerberg only personally apologized for removing the Prime Minister’s post. But this does not diminish the underlying question. In a massive digital market like India, where billions of people use social media, the platform’s responsibility cannot be limited to simply removing content. Measures like algorithmic accountability, rapid grievance redressal, age verification, and human monitoring are becoming increasingly important to protect children from sexually explicit material, deepfakes, cyberbullying, dangerous challenges, self-harm content, or highly inflammatory content.
If we consider the next major front in the US starting August 12th: will the entire business model be put on trial? The New Mexico decision is not an isolated case. The US faces extensive legal pressure from lawsuits filed by several states against Meta in the US. In the context of your article, the proceedings starting on August 12th, 2026, are of particular significance, as they will be hearings on behalf of several states regarding the alleged addictive design of social media and the safety of children.
Following this, opening arguments are scheduled to begin on August 18, 2026. The true significance of these cases extends beyond potential fines. If courts determine that a platform intentionally or recklessly designed features intended to keep users on the platform for longer, while being aware of the potential harm to children, the entire legal framework for determining tech companies’ liability could change in the future.
The question will no longer be simply, “How many hours did a child spend on Instagram?” But also, “How much did the platform design to keep them coming back?” Infinite scrolling, autoplay, persistent notifications, highly personalized recommendations, and engagement-based algorithms are central to this debate. The European Commission, in its preliminary conclusion on July 10, 2026, also considered Meta’s addictive design on Instagram and Facebook to be potential violations under the Digital Services Act. The Commission focused its investigation on infinite scrolling, autoplay, push notifications, and personalized recommender systems.
we consider how the world is changing: digital limits for children from Australia to the UK, social media regulation is no longer a national issue.
Australia has implemented one of the world’s strictest models for social media accounts for children under 16. Platforms are responsible for taking appropriate steps to block accounts for under-16 users. Companies violating these rules could face fines of up to AUD 49.5 million; there are no penalties for children or their parents. The UK also announced in June 2026 that it would ban social media for children under 16. According to the government, the proposed changes are targeted for implementation by spring 2027. Additional restrictions are also proposed on certain risky features, such as livestreaming and strangers contacting children. From here, a new policy perspective emerges—it’s not enough to simply tell children to “use their phones less”; platforms must also be designed to avoid unnecessarily immersing children in screen time.
we consider the big question for India: should we add warnings, verify age, or change the design? The most important aspect of this debate in India is that social media is not used solely for entertainment. It extends to education, employment, business, news, political discourse, and social interaction. Therefore, implementing a direct ban in India, as in the US or Australia, would be a complex question. Perhaps a more practical approach for India would be “accountability before ban.”
The Digital Personal Data Protection Framework in India provides special protection for the processing of children’s personal data. The Information Technology Act and Intermediary Rules form the basis for platforms’ responsibilities. In this context, age assurance, parental controls, privacy-by-default, harmful content detection, and swift grievance redressal could be further strengthened for children. However, an important legal distinction must be understood: safe harbor does not automatically imply that a platform is responsible for all content, and a single controversy does not automatically void safe harbor. Intermediary protection in India is linked to specific statutory requirements and due diligence. Therefore, action against social media companies must be taken in accordance with the established legal process. Similarly, the US COPPA primarily addresses children’s online privacy and the collection of personal information; it would be inappropriate to interpret it as a universal “ban law” for social media addiction. The European Union’s DSA provides a much broader platform-risk framework. Provisions such as protecting children from behavioural advertising and assessing platform risks are important. The recent meta investigation indicates that algorithms themselves have become the subject of regulatory scrutiny.
So, if we study and analyse the above description, we will find that digital freedom is important, but digital responsibility is even more important. Treating social media like cigarettes or alcohol may not be legally and scientifically sound, but one important principle can be learned from tobacco regulation: personal freedom doesn’t end where the safety of others begins, and a company’s responsibility doesn’t end when a user presses the “accept” button. This responsibility is even greater for children. A child is in no position to understand why the algorithm keeps showing them the same video, why notifications keep calling them again, and why the infinite scrolling doesn’t let them stop. Therefore, in the digital age, along with the responsibility of parents, accountability is essential for platform designers, tech companies, regulators, and the government. Perhaps the biggest debate in the coming years will not be ‘Should children be kept away from social media?’ But rather, ‘How safe should social media be made for children, and who should be legally responsible for its safety?’ If it is considered necessary to state on cigarette packets that their consumption is harmful to health, then it would not be inappropriate to convey at least this message in the digital age.
(STRAIGHT TALK COMMUNICATIONS EXCLUSIVE)
