Attorney Mark Lanier has a blunt answer to what it will take to make social media companies answer for how their platforms affect users. Speaking at the WIRED World Fair in Miami, Lanier said the most effective lever is aggressive litigation — what he described as beating the companies soundly in court. His remarks came during a conversation with WIRED senior correspondent Lauren Goode, and they landed as several major legal fronts against the platforms are moving forward at once.
Lanier is a central figure in the social media addiction court fights. He served as lead attorney in the first social media addiction case to reach trial, which ended in March with a verdict against Meta and Google. The plaintiff received $6 million in damages. The sum is a notable symbolic win but a negligible amount relative to the resources of the companies involved.
From Single Plaintiff to Statewide Cases
Lanier argued that cases brought by state attorneys general carry more potential for meaningful change, because they can combine broad legal claims with substantial financial exposure. One such case went to trial in August, with attorneys general from multiple states — including Arkansas, where Lanier’s firm acted as outside counsel — accusing Meta of failing to protect young users on its platforms.
A few days into that trial, Meta agreed to a settlement worth up to $16.7 billion, to be paid to 51 U.S. states and territories. The company also committed to changing how teenagers experience Instagram and Facebook, including a default two-hour time limit. In September, TikTok agreed to similar limits as part of a settlement in Alabama.
Why Billions May Not Be Enough
Even settlements and verdicts that climb into the billions can be absorbed by a company as large as Meta, which Lanier noted is valued at $1.7 trillion. From that perspective, such outcomes can be treated as a cost of doing business. But Lanier said the consequences extend beyond balance sheets. Litigation can shape how the public views the platforms and how employees inside those companies feel about the work they do.
He framed courtroom wins and public understanding as complementary forces. People need to know what the companies do, he said, because that kind of pressure can drive broader change. Lanier made clear that his appearance was not a casual diversion; he wants the public to grasp the conduct at issue, not just the dollar figures attached to the cases.
For Lanier, the legal strategy and the public-awareness push reinforce each other. Verdicts and settlements create concrete obligations, while scrutiny from users and workers raises the cost of ignoring the problems. The first trial produced a modest award, but the state-level settlement that followed showed how quickly the stakes can grow when attorneys general take up the cause. The two-hour default limit and other promised changes to teen accounts are now part of the record, and similar terms have begun appearing in other settlements.
Lanier’s message is that accountability is not a single verdict or a single settlement. It is a sustained campaign in courtrooms and in public view, one that keeps pressure on companies whose scale makes ordinary penalties easy to dismiss.
