Teen Mental Health Could be Protected by Public Nuisance Laws
In recognition of Mental Health Awareness Month, the question of whether addictive technology should be subject to public nuisance laws is top of mind.
For many years, conversations about social media and mental health have centered around personal responsibility: screen time limits, parental controls, and good digital citizenship. But in a case against a social media platform, New Mexico’s Attorney General is pushing a far more aggressive legal argument - one that reframes social media harm not as a parenting or public health concern, but as a public nuisance, a hazard that threatens community health and safety.
That distinction matters.
If appellate courts agree with New Mexico's argument, the implications could reshape how platforms are designed, regulated, and held accountable across the United States.
During Mental Health Awareness Month, it's important to examine not only the emotional impact of social media on young people, but also the growing movement to treat platform design the same way society has treated dangerous products, environmental pollution, or unsafe infrastructure.
We've seen momentum throughout the states identifying and addressing specific harms (e.g. algorithmic recommendations, infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications) in connection with social media and mental health.
The conversation is not new, but the lens is changing.
In 2022, in collaboration with a diverse group of U.S. businesses, BBB National Programs’ Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) developed the TeenAge Privacy Program (TAPP) Roadmap to map the broad spectrum of potential harms impacting teens, including mental health harms, onto a concrete set of operational considerations.
The TAPP Roadmap and this new debate both highlight that the focus is increasingly on how platforms are intentionally engineered.
This mirrors arguments already familiar in other industries. Tobacco companies were scrutinized for nicotine engineering. Opioid manufacturers faced litigation over addictive formulations and marketing practices. Now, lawmakers and litigators are examining whether social platforms similarly optimized products around psychological vulnerability.
New Mexico's position is that platform design choices have directly contributed to a statewide youth mental health crisis and therefore require not only damages, but structural reforms including mandatory age verification, limits on addictive engagement features, independent safety monitoring, and funding for youth mental health interventions.
Mental health professionals have increasingly raised concerns about the relationship between social media use and:
The science remains nuanced, and researchers continue debating causation versus correlation. Proposed laws and verdicts, putting the onus on platforms in connection with a duty of care, are shifting public sentiment regarding platform responsibility. The conversation is now focused on a requirement for platforms to design safer systems.
Some researchers are now discussing social media through a public health framework rather than a purely technological or free speech framework. That approach treats online harms similarly to environmental or consumer safety risks.
Whether courts accept New Mexico’s “public nuisance” theory remains to be seen. However, the case itself signals that lawmakers, attorneys, and advocates are no longer satisfied with voluntary safety measures alone. The future of social media regulation may depend less on content moderation debates and more on one central issue:
What responsibility do platforms have when engagement-driven design features appear to conflict with public mental health?
During Mental Health Awareness Month, that question feels more urgent than ever. If you are a business navigating this landscape in need of support, contact CARU at CARU@bbbnp.org for guidance on how to build a compliant platform or product.
For many years, conversations about social media and mental health have centered around personal responsibility: screen time limits, parental controls, and good digital citizenship. But in a case against a social media platform, New Mexico’s Attorney General is pushing a far more aggressive legal argument - one that reframes social media harm not as a parenting or public health concern, but as a public nuisance, a hazard that threatens community health and safety.
That distinction matters.
If appellate courts agree with New Mexico's argument, the implications could reshape how platforms are designed, regulated, and held accountable across the United States.
During Mental Health Awareness Month, it's important to examine not only the emotional impact of social media on young people, but also the growing movement to treat platform design the same way society has treated dangerous products, environmental pollution, or unsafe infrastructure.
We've seen momentum throughout the states identifying and addressing specific harms (e.g. algorithmic recommendations, infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications) in connection with social media and mental health.
The conversation is not new, but the lens is changing.
In 2022, in collaboration with a diverse group of U.S. businesses, BBB National Programs’ Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) developed the TeenAge Privacy Program (TAPP) Roadmap to map the broad spectrum of potential harms impacting teens, including mental health harms, onto a concrete set of operational considerations.
The TAPP Roadmap and this new debate both highlight that the focus is increasingly on how platforms are intentionally engineered.
This mirrors arguments already familiar in other industries. Tobacco companies were scrutinized for nicotine engineering. Opioid manufacturers faced litigation over addictive formulations and marketing practices. Now, lawmakers and litigators are examining whether social platforms similarly optimized products around psychological vulnerability.
New Mexico's position is that platform design choices have directly contributed to a statewide youth mental health crisis and therefore require not only damages, but structural reforms including mandatory age verification, limits on addictive engagement features, independent safety monitoring, and funding for youth mental health interventions.
Mental health professionals have increasingly raised concerns about the relationship between social media use and:
- Anxiety
- Depression
- Self-harm exposure
- Sleep disruption
- Compulsive usage behaviors
The science remains nuanced, and researchers continue debating causation versus correlation. Proposed laws and verdicts, putting the onus on platforms in connection with a duty of care, are shifting public sentiment regarding platform responsibility. The conversation is now focused on a requirement for platforms to design safer systems.
Some researchers are now discussing social media through a public health framework rather than a purely technological or free speech framework. That approach treats online harms similarly to environmental or consumer safety risks.
Whether courts accept New Mexico’s “public nuisance” theory remains to be seen. However, the case itself signals that lawmakers, attorneys, and advocates are no longer satisfied with voluntary safety measures alone. The future of social media regulation may depend less on content moderation debates and more on one central issue:
What responsibility do platforms have when engagement-driven design features appear to conflict with public mental health?
During Mental Health Awareness Month, that question feels more urgent than ever. If you are a business navigating this landscape in need of support, contact CARU at CARU@bbbnp.org for guidance on how to build a compliant platform or product.