In many ways, social media has turned out to be a force for elevated harm across a broad range of issues philanthropy concerns itself with: public and mental health, children’s welfare, education, democracy, and more.
Countless studies have detailed its negative impacts, from poor mental health among children and teens, to the proliferation of dangerous medical advice during the pandemic, to an increase in political polarization. Moreover, disinformation, which poses serious threats to democracy, often spreads through social media platforms.
But pushing for social media regulation isn’t an easy task for private funders. Congress, the governing body best suited to curb social media companies’ hegemony, has so far failed to enact any meaningful regulation, despite apparent concerns about it.
A recent court case, however, may signal a turning point and present an opportunity for funders to take action. Last month, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, and Google’s YouTube were found liable in the case of a 20-year-old woman who argued the social media giants designed their platforms to be addictive, leading to a host of mental health issues for her, including anxiety and depression. Meta will be forced to pay $4.2 million and YouTube will pay $1.8 million. TikTok and Snap, which owns Snapchat, settled before the trial began.
The decision is being hailed as a landmark ruling, one that may set a precedent for future cases, many of which have already been filed on behalf of teens and young adults.
“This verdict is bigger than one case…Today’s verdict is a referendum — from a jury, to an entire industry — that accountability has arrived,” said the plaintiff’s lawyer in a statement.
Similarly, in New Mexico, jurors found that Meta had misled consumers about its platforms’ safety protections, which endangered children and allowed sexual predators to contact them. That followed a harrowing report from 2024 in the New York Times on underage girls exploited by their parents on Instagram, including instances of photo sales and chat sessions with “professed pedophiles.” While, as a spokesperson for Meta told the Times, the actions or inaction of parents and guardians plays a role in all of this, it is still damning that the platform usually allows the content and comments to stand.
For philanthropy, the success of these two bellwether lawsuits presents a moment of opportunity for the sector to take action. Funders are, after all, already supporting work in a number of intersecting areas, including AI safety and regulation, misinformation, privacy, children’s health and safety, mental health and democracy. One lens in particular stands out as a way for philanthropy to adapt existing approaches to the challenge of regulating social media: public health.
From Big Tobacco to Big Tech: the public health angle
Take, for instance, tobacco industry regulation. Like social media companies, tobacco companies were well aware of the addictive properties and adverse health effects of their products. Landmark cases against major tobacco companies beginning in the 1980s eventually set the stage for widespread regulation for the industry and numerous campaigns led to a shift in attitudes towards smoking.
While it’s too early to say for sure whether “accountability has arrived” for social media, given current trends — including many young people deleting accounts — it’s possible for these recent cases to set the stage for meaningful social media regulation.
As to what philanthropy can do, Bloomberg Philanthropies offers an interesting case study. Bloomberg’s Reducing Tobacco Use program, which is part of its Public Health area of giving, has dedicated at least $1.6 billion since 2005 to fight tobacco use, prevent tobacco-related illnesses and ultimately save lives.
Part of its work includes an initiative dedicated to protecting kids from flavored e-cigarettes. The initiative is focused on passing laws to ban all flavored e-cigarettes, prevent manufacturers from marketing to children, crack down on online sales, help parents make their voices heard, and fund ad campaigns to counter tobacco companies’ marketing efforts and attempts to influence public policy.
Bloomberg Philanthropies’ work around tobacco use is one model for how funders can tackle social media as a matter of public health — an ever-more-popular funding lens in recent years — pushing not for its outright ban, but for regulation to protect vulnerable populations and the public at large.
Funders should note that a wide range of nonprofit organizations are working on social media regulation and accountability, including the Organization for Social Media Safety, the Council for Responsible Social Media, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Digital Democracy.
There are also opportunities for regional and state-based funders to get involved in policy advocacy. While the federal government has so far failed to pass regulations for social media companies, state governments are taking action. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of October 2025, at least 45 states and Puerto Rico have introduced more than 300 bills and resolutions related to social media and children, with 20 new laws enacted in 2025.
One critical thing for funders to note is that while regulating social media is necessary, there could be a slippery slope to censorship and surveillance. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a proposed law that aims to put guidelines in place to protect minors, has been criticized for its mandatory age verification component and allowing the government to target content it dislikes. KOSA has famously been backed by the Heritage Foundation, and at a time when the party in charge is targeting free speech and aiming to limit access to information to which it objects, funders need to find a working balance between addressing online harms and protecting civil liberties.
Regulating social media goes beyond protecting children and young adults, though that is, of course, an important element. Given the prevalence of social media and how it touches so many aspects of society, it is critical to ensure that platforms do not continue to cause or enable harm — to individuals and to the body politic as a whole. From democracy and journalism funders to those who back community health and wellbeing, making sure that tech companies take responsibility for the products they unleash on society is an increasingly important role for philanthropy to play.
Related Inside Philanthropy Resources:
For Subscribers Only
