For decades, the tobacco industry insisted that cigarettes were a matter of personal choice. Tobacco companies argued that consumers made their own decisions and that manufacturers merely sold a legal product. Yet over time, evidence emerged suggesting that companies knew far more about the risks than they publicly acknowledged. What followed was one of the largest corporate settlements in American history. The companies also knew about the financial benefits of encouraging children to take up smoking – “get them young and you have a customer for life (until death)”… Today, a growing number of lawmakers, US attorneys general, campaigners and parents believe that a similar debate is beginning to unfold around Big Tech.
At the centre of this discussion sits Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the law widely credited with enabling the growth of the “modern Internet”. Section 230 largely protects online platforms from liability for content posted by users. Supporters view it as essential to free expression and innovation; however most of us increasingly view it as a legal shield that allows some of the world’s most powerful companies to profit from harmful activity while avoiding responsibility for the consequences.
The Profits Versus Safety Debate
The central accusation facing Big Tech is remarkably similar to the one that eventually confronted Big Tobacco. The criticism is not necessarily that companies set out to create harm. Rather, it is that once evidence of harm became increasingly difficult to ignore, commercial interests continued to take priority. Tobacco companies generated enormous revenues while smoking-related illnesses created huge costs for healthcare systems, taxpayers and anyone who lost a friend or family member to lung diseases or cancer.
Today, social media platforms generate enormous advertising revenues while society grapples with cyberbullying, online exploitation, sextortion, fraud, misinformation, addictive platform design, mental health concerns and the widespread distribution of harmful content. The products may be different, but it’s almost impossible not to draw parallels. In both cases, private companies benefited financially while wider social costs were transferred onto everyone else.
Additionally, I have watched whistle blowers from some of the major platforms give evidence under oath to sub committees that safety data on the harms of social media platforms and AI chatbots was deliberately withheld.
Who Pays for the Harm?
One of the most striking aspects of the online safety debate is that many of the costs generated by digital harms are borne by people and organisations that did not create the problem. Parents spend countless hours managing children’s online experiences. Schools are expected to deal with cyberbullying, online conflicts and behavioural issues linked to excessive device use. Increasingly, schools are also expected to confiscate phones, store them securely, return them safely and teach online safety education, often with limited resources and little consistency.
Police investigate online exploitation, fraud, harassment and grooming. Healthcare systems respond to mental health concerns associated with excessive online engagement. Businesses spend billions on cybersecurity, fraud prevention, employee awareness training and reputation management. Governments create regulators, enforcement teams and legislative frameworks designed to address emerging digital harms.
Meanwhile, the platforms themselves continue generating revenue regardless of who ultimately pays the cost of dealing with the consequences. This shifting of responsibility lies at the heart of many comparisons between Big Tech and Big Tobacco.
The Tobacco Settlement
In 1998, 46 US states reached the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement with the largest tobacco companies.
The settlement was projected to deliver approximately $206 billion over its first 25 years while imposing restrictions on advertising and marketing practices, particularly those aimed at young people. State attorneys general argued that taxpayers were effectively subsidising the healthcare costs associated with smoking while tobacco companies continued to profit. The principle behind the settlement was straightforward. If a private industry creates substantial public costs, should the public be left carrying the bill? The same question is increasingly being asked of technology companies.
The New Mexico Test Case
If there is one lawsuit that could become Big Tech’s equivalent of the early tobacco litigation, it may be the action brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez.
Torrez filed a suit against Meta, alleging that the company’s platforms enabled child sexual exploitation, grooming, trafficking and the distribution of child sexual abuse material. Investigators created undercover accounts posing as children and reported receiving sexually explicit content, contact from suspected predators and recommendations directing them towards harmful material.
The significance of the case extends beyond the allegations themselves. The lawsuit challenges the assumption that Section 230 should shield technology companies from liability when platform design, recommendation systems and business decisions contribute to foreseeable harm.
Just as state attorneys general once argued that tobacco companies should not be insulated from the consequences of their products, Torrez argues that technology companies should not be immune when platform features allegedly facilitate exploitation and abuse.
For supporters of reform, the New Mexico litigation represents a modern version of the state-led legal challenges that eventually transformed the tobacco industry.
The question being asked is strikingly similar: when a private company profits while society absorbs the resulting costs, where should responsibility lie?
The California Lawsuit
While New Mexico has focused heavily on exploitation and child safety, California’s legal action targets a different aspect of the same debate: whether social media platforms were deliberately designed to maximise engagement among young users despite known risks. In October 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a bipartisan coalition of more than 30 state attorney generals in filing a major lawsuit against Meta. The lawsuit related to the claim that Meta designed and deployed features on Instagram and Facebook that intentionally encourage prolonged use by children and teenagers while publicly minimising concerns about potential harm.
According to the complaint, Meta built a business model centred on keeping young users engaged for longer periods because greater engagement generates greater advertising revenue. The states allege that platform features such as endless scrolling, notifications, recommendation systems and other engagement mechanisms were designed to encourage repeated use throughout the day. The attorney general further allege that Meta possessed internal information regarding the effects of its platforms on young users while continuing to market and expand those products.
The California case is significant because it shifts the focus away from individual posts or pieces of content and places attention on the product itself. The argument being advanced is that the issue is not solely what users post, but how the platform has been designed to attract, retain and monetise attention.
This distinction is important because it challenges one of the central assumptions behind Section 230. If legal actions focus on corporate design decisions, product features and business practices rather than user-generated content, courts may be asked to examine the conduct of the platform itself rather than simply the content appearing on it.
The California lawsuit also echoes one of the themes that emerged during the tobacco litigation of the 1990s. The allegation is not merely that harm occurred. The allegation is that companies understood the risks associated with their products, continued benefiting from the behaviours generating revenue and failed to make substantial changes until legal and political pressure intensified.
Taken together, the New Mexico and California cases attack Big Tech from two directions. New Mexico focuses on child exploitation, grooming and platform safety. California focuses on engagement design, youth mental health and the commercial incentives driving platform development. Both cases raise the same fundamental question: should technology companies continue to receive broad legal protections when plaintiffs argue that the companies’ own product design choices contributed to foreseeable harm?
The Results So Far
The legal challenges are no longer theoretical. In New Mexico, a jury found Meta liable and awarded the state $375 million, delivering one of the most significant courtroom defeats yet suffered by a major social media company. In California, a jury found Meta and Google liable in a landmark youth-harm case, awarding damages to the plaintiffs and signalling a willingness by courts to hold technology companies accountable for the consequences of their platform design. Together, these verdicts suggest that courts are becoming increasingly willing to look beyond Section 230 and examine whether the companies themselves bear responsibility for harms linked to their products and business practices.
The Business Model Behind the Debate
Critics argue that the fundamental problem lies in the business model itself. Social media companies are not rewarded financially for reducing screen time, limiting engagement or collecting less data. Their revenues are driven largely by advertising, and advertising becomes more valuable as users spend more time on platforms. Every click, view, comment, share and interaction generates data – every piece of data generates value.
Children represent a particularly valuable audience because their habits, preferences, interests and social connections can be tracked over many years. The earlier a platform captures a user, the longer it can build a commercially valuable profile. Many lawmakers and attorneys general now argue that Big Tech views children not as individuals to protect, but as resources to acquire, profile and monetise. In this view, children are data-mined for engagement and advertising revenue, while the long-term consequences are left for families, schools and society to deal with once the profit has been extracted.
How can most young users have any understanding of what they are agreeing to when accepting lengthy terms and conditions? Legal agreements that run to thousands of words are routinely accepted with a single click because all the child wants to do is download the App. Children have no realistic understanding of how much personal information may be collected, analysed, retained and monetised throughout their lives; their parents would probably be equally horrified if they knew what was really going on. This criticism extends beyond content moderation, because it goes to the heart of how the industry generates revenue. User engagement drives profit and profit drives shareholder value. If reducing engagement reduces revenue, then safety measures can become commercially inconvenient.
Political Pressure Is Growing
The challenge to Section 230 is no longer limited to campaigners, parents and advocacy groups. It is increasingly being driven by lawmakers from across the political spectrum. Senator Josh Hawley has become one of the most vocal critics of Big Tech’s legal protections. During congressional hearings involving technology executives, Mr Hawley has repeatedly argued that major platforms have generated enormous profits while families and communities have been left to deal with the consequences of online harms.
His message has been simple: if companies profit from systems that contribute to foreseeable harm, they should bear greater responsibility for preventing and addressing it. Senator Dick Durbin has likewise advanced efforts to sunset Section 230 protections unless Congress creates a replacement framework. Alongside other lawmakers, Durbin has argued that legal immunities created during the early internet era may no longer be appropriate for some of the most powerful corporations in history.
Pressure intensified further following criticism of Meta’s decision to remove and ban any advertisements connected to legal actions that ask victims of social media harms to contact their District Attorney’s office. Opponents viewed the move as an attempt to limit visibility for individuals seeking legal recourse against the company. The controversy reinforced concerns among critics that major platforms continue to prioritise commercial interests over transparency and accountability.
The debate has moved well beyond technology policy circles and now sits firmly within mainstream American politics.
Could Big Tech Face a Tobacco-Style Reckoning?
Numerous lawsuits have already been brought against social media companies by states, school districts, families and advocacy groups. The allegations include: addictive platform design, kids mental health, exploitation and child safety, deceptive business practices and data collection – all horrific, What unites them is a growing challenge to the idea that technology platforms should enjoy broad legal protections while exercising enormous influence over public life. A call for accountability, corporate responsibility and who is going to foot the bill for the long term physical and mental harms.
A Potential Tobacco Moment
The comparison between Big Tech and Big Tobacco is not based on identical products.
It is based on a similar pattern of allegations.
In both cases, companies generated extraordinary profits while wider social costs were absorbed by others; healthcare systems bore the burden of smoking-related illness. Others were affected by passive smoking. Today, parents, schools, businesses, law enforcement agencies, healthcare providers and governments increasingly bear the burden of online harms; some parents have been physically attacked by their own children who were provoked to do so by AI chatbots…
The tobacco industry spent decades insisting that responsibility rested primarily with consumers until state attorney generals, lawmakers and courts began asking a different question: what responsibility should fall upon the companies that (knowingly) profited?
That same question is now being asked of Big Tech. Whether Section 230 ultimately survives, is reformed or is replaced altogether remains uncertain. What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that the legal, political and public scrutiny facing technology companies continues to grow. The New Mexico and California litigations, the efforts of Senators Hawley and Durbin, and the growing movement for platform accountability may represent the beginning of Big Tech’s tobacco moment.
The question is when history is about to witness another major corporate reckoning – Tick Tock, Tick Tock…
FAQ
What is Section 230?
Section 230 is a provision of US law that generally protects online platforms from legal liability for content posted by users.
What is the Sunset Section 230 Act?
The proposal would repeal Section 230 protections after a defined period unless Congress creates a replacement framework.
Who is Raúl Torrez?
Raúl Torrez is the Attorney General of New Mexico and has brought legal action against Meta concerning child safety and online exploitation allegations.
How much was the tobacco settlement worth?
The 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement was projected to provide approximately $206 billion over its first 25 years.
Why do critics compare Big Tech to Big Tobacco?
Critics argue that both industries generated significant profits while wider social costs were borne by individuals, public services and taxpayers.
