Newsletter Edition #369 [The Files In-Depth]
Readers,
In this edition, we bring you a careful exploration on the urgent challenge of social media and mental health.
This is brought to you by Deena Mehjabeen, a Bangladeshi public health scholar based in Australia. She is a part of our annual fellowship program this year.
We hope you find her examination of this complex issue nuanced and revealing.
Thank you for reading and sharing your feedback with us.
Geneva Health Files offers value to our readers who are experts in global health. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive, without institutional support. For six years, we have provided you with the information and tools that directly contribute to your work in the field. We rely on our readers who value news they can use.
By becoming a paying subscriber you make our work possible. Our subscribers contribute towards greater accountability in global health.
Please note that we will have fewer editions in the coming weeks. We use this time every year to go back to the drawing board to fine-tune strategy, technology and everything that keeps this operations going.
Best,
Priti
Priti Patnaik, Founder & Publisher, Geneva Health Files
Feel free to write to us: genevahealthfiles@gmail.com ; Find us on BlueSky, Instagram and Linkedin.
I. GHF ANALYSIS
Beyond the Ban: Can Social Media Restrictions Protect Youth Mental Health?
By Deena Mehjabeen
Mehjabeen is a public health researcher working on mental health, migration, and health equity. She is a 2026 Geneva Health Files Fellow. Email: mehjabeen.deena@yahoo.com
Australia’s move to restrict young people’s access to social media reflects a growing global push to address digital harms. Similar debates are unfolding across Europe, the United Kingdom, and parts of the United States, where policymakers increasingly frame social media as a public health risk. But as regulation tightens and courts begin holding technology companies to account across jurisdictions, a central question remains: can restricting access meaningfully improve youth mental health?
From policy debate to legal accountability
Concerns about youth social media use are no longer confined to public health or policy circles. In March 2026, juries in the United States delivered landmark verdicts against Meta and YouTube in cases involving alleged harms to young users, reported by major outlets including the New York Times.
In California, a jury found the companies negligent for design features including infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmic recommendations that allegedly contributed to mental distress in a young user, including anxiety, depression, and body image concerns. In a separate case in New Mexico, Meta was found to have violated consumer protection laws by misleading users about platform safety and failing to address known risks to children. Together, the cases mark an important shift in how responsibility for digital environments is being defined. Plaintiffs increasingly argue that social media platforms are not neutral intermediaries but products deliberately engineered to maximise engagement, despite evidence of potential psychological harm among young users.
The cases echo earlier litigation against the tobacco industry, where companies were accused of designing addictive products while downplaying risks. The comparison reflects a broader shift in how courts and public health actors are beginning to interpret platform responsibility.
These rulings highlight a widening gap between technological governance and regulatory capacity. In many jurisdictions, legislative responses to child online safety remain fragmented, politically contested, or slow to materialise, leaving courts to increasingly determine liability.
