In March 2026, the Los Angeles court found Meta and Google’s YouTube liable for harming a teenage girl through an intentionally addictive platform. The girl, referred to as K.G.M. in the lawsuit, had begun using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine. Over time, her use of these platforms led to addiction, depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. She sued, arguing that social media platforms, with their toxic design, amplified her struggles. The jury agreed and ordered Meta and Google to compensate six million dollars in damages. The verdict was monumental in becoming the first case where social media companies were judged guilty for how they designed their platforms. With over 2,000 similar lawsuits waiting to be addressed, this case sets the expectation of how currently pending, and future cases will play out. However, a six million dollar verdict against two of the world’s greatest tech giants seems almost negligible. So how can we prevent similar cases in the future and protect the ideals of Non Sibi in the realm of profit and enterprise?
Usually on a day to day basis, people display relatively stable values of morals. People usually don’t seek to intentionally hurt children by designing malicious platforms that damage their mental health. However, the situation changes when put in context of financial motivation. Not minor tens or hundreds of dollars, but billions. When such enormous rewards are at hand, an instinctive response might prioritize personal benefit and neglect the consequences on others. Similar examples can be seen throughout history. For decades, tobacco companies internally recognized the addictive and harmful nature of their product, yet continued marketing it, even targeting children. It probably wasn’t that these company executives produced the tobaccos with the active, evil desire to harm children. Sometimes, financial motivation or personal greed can dangerously recalibrate one’s moral compass.
The verdict against Meta and YouTube is undoubtedly significant. It sets a legal precedent that signals to similar companies of the possibility of consequences. But courts are only reactive. They respond to harm after an event or crime has already happened. It can’t prevent addiction, depression, or other harms after they have already impacted the victim. Furthermore, companies like Meta and Google generate hundreds of billions in annual revenue. A six million dollar verdict is not enough to make these companies change. As long as the profit from their addictive design exceeds the cost of punishment, there is no practical incentive for these business models to change. This is the challenge of righteousness—Non Sibi—in the real-world. The motto encourages to live not for oneself, but for others. However, the world operates exactly the opposite way; the selfish often thrive.
Acknowledging that people tend to bend toward billion-dollar incentives, the answer cannot stop at criticizing the companies but must go further to reshape the incentives themselves. The first step is rethinking how penalties are structured. While a one-time six million dollar reparation may not sway the tech giants, ways of disincentivizing toxic ways of profit could work. Fines proportionalized to revenue, say 10% of annual income, can create a financial consequence that is actually impactful. The second is mandatory design inspections. Independent, external reviews of the harmful features like those that the Los Angeles court found can prevent these harmful platforms from being released in the first place. Aside from these, there are plenty of other possible policy suggestions. Regardless, the most important central idea that all of them share is making the harmful choice the expensive choice, so that human nature, which often follows incentives, follows the path that doesn’t harm society.
The verdict in Los Angeles was impactful. But a jury and judge in one courtroom cannot restructure an economic system that has already deeply rooted itself. The six million dollars awarded to K.G.M wouldn’t have been a heavy blow on the financial status of Meta or Google. And the 2,000 pending lawsuits, even if they all succeed, would have to be dealt with case by case, all the while continuing to damage individuals outside the courtroom . The deeper issue remains: as long as the rewards favor harm, harm will continue. To protect the ideal values of Non Sibi and prevent it from being eclipsed by temptations of high profit, we cannot only ask whether these companies are good or bad. We must address whether we as individual people are willing to build systems that make choosing Non Sibi the economically rational choice — not just the moral one.
