Recent court cases have seen juries finding **Meta** and **YouTube** liable for harm allegedly caused by their platform features. A California Superior Court jury ruled against the companies, while a New Mexico jury concluded **Meta** misled young users regarding safety from online predation. These outcomes reflect widespread frustration with big tech and its practices, particularly **Meta**. Concerns often revolve around what some call harmful corporate surveillance. ### Legal Precedent and the First Amendment While it's tempting to view these cases as setting a legal precedent that should make social media companies fearful, that’s not necessarily the case. These jury trials represent an early stage in a potentially lengthy legal process. The cases are expected to be appealed, prompting reconsideration of **First Amendment** protections and immunity under Section 230. The **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)**, among others, argues that the **First Amendment** safeguards both user speech and platforms' choices in delivering that speech. Features designed to connect users are intrinsically linked to user speech and should be protected. ### The Broader Implications Lowering **First Amendment** and immunity standards could have unintended consequences for other speakers and platforms. Creating less protective speech rules solely for **Meta** and **Google** is problematic. Much of the public's anger stems from the perception that these companies harvest, exploit, and monetize user data. Calls continue for Congress to enact comprehensive national privacy legislation with a private right of action to address these fundamental concerns.