In January 2026, Florida Congressman Jimmy Patronis introduced the PROTECT Act (the Promoting Responsible Online Technology and Ensuring Consumer Trust Act) as a framework to hold social media platforms accountable.
“I filed the PROTECT Act because, like so many parents, I’m fed up with Big Tech using our kids for profit. Social media is a digital fentanyl, and Big Tech has turned too many of our children into addicts, with some paying the ultimate price,” Congressman Patronis stated. ”No amount of money can undo that damage. And as long as Section 230 shields Big Tech from accountability, this will continue. It’s time for Congress to act and pass the PROTECT Act.”
A key piece of legislation referenced in the conversation surrounding protecting youth online is the Communications Act of 1934. Section 230 (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material outlines the Treatment of publisher or speaker. It states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
The is a key protection for online platforms that Congressman Patronis is pushing to repeal. Doing so would remove protections from online platforms placing the responsibility squarely upon big tech who allow harmful behavior.
The legislation and its importance came into the spotlight once again as 42 states and the District of Columbia leveled lawsuits against tech giant Meta over alleged violations regarding harms to youth.
According to reports, attorneys general argued that Meta’s platforms preyed on the vulnerability of the brain development of youth. Litigators accuse the parent company of Facebook and Instagram of gamifying the platform, calling it “addictive dopamine mining.”
The lawsuit accuses Meta of deliberately creating an addictive product design that hooked children on its platforms. Circulating news around the lawsuit suggests that Meta intentionally engineered products in particular ways despite warning that it exacerbated the mental health crisis among youth.
States argue that features like infinite scrolling, continuous algorithmic recommendations, auto-play, notifications, and "like" counts were specifically engineered by Meta to manipulate youth brain chemistry and drive compulsive engagement.
As noted, prosecutors contend that Meta executives were aware of internal studies showing Instagram increased rates of depression, anxiety, body image issues, and self-harm among teens, but hid or minimized the findings.
It is reported that state counsel presented internal Meta documents showing that senior leadership was repeatedly warned of platform harms to girls and adolescents but suppressed the research to avoid public backlash and regulatory scrutiny. The lawsuits allege Meta repeatedly misinformed Congress and the public about the mental health impacts of its products.
The case against the tech giant snowballs with several states also accusing Meta of Violations of Children’s Privacy (COPPA), illegally collecting data on children under 13 without verifiable parental consent, a violation of federal law.
In court statements, state prosecutors reportedly framed the case not as a battle over freedom of speech or tech innovation, but as corporate accountability for a public health crisis.
State attorneys argued that Meta prioritized user engagement and ad revenues over the well-being of young people, engineering dopamine-driven reward loops that act like digital "slot machines" for young minds.
The States purportedly pressed for court-enforced changes to Meta's algorithms, default safety settings, age verification systems, and financial penalties.
Per reports, Meta’s defense argued during opening statements that the states cherry-picked internal documents and that social media is just one of many factors influencing teen mental health.
The technological juggernaut purportedly agreed to restrictions for users under age 18 including implementing “School Mode” which includes turning off notifications during the school day. They also agreed to creating 2-hour time limits, and the inability to see “likes” or “shares” on posts.
Additionally, it was stated that the company has introduced over 30 safety features specifically designed for teens and parents. However, prosecutors reportedly emphasized that the tools and safety features that Meta implemented for parents to control children’s screentime were allegedly designed to be confusing, ineffective, or easy for teens to bypass.
Despite their stance, it is reported that the tech giant offered an $18 billion settlement to plaintiffs. Florida Attorney General James Uthereim rejected the offer calling it a “weak payoff attempt” in a social media post. Uthereim’s decision to decline settlement and pursue the case sends a clear message that the suit is not about the money. Violations can’t be paid off and pushed aside while bad business practices persist.
Additionally, because tech giants are laden with massive wealth and far-reaching influence, many believe that monetary compensation often has little impact on their bottom line. It doesn’t serve as a deterrent and can often encourage corporate recidivism.
The consensus is that tech platforms must re-engineer their core architectures to mitigate risk and harm to users.
Patronis’ PROTECT Act makes it clear protecting starts with prevention and prevention, in this case, begins with technology developers taking responsibility over what is published on their platforms. The U.S. Representative for Florida's 1st Congressional District makes it clear that protecting the mental and emotional health of our youth is a national priority.
Meta has taken steps to implement safeguards moving forward. Patronis’ PROTECT Act would ensure that there is a national standard to which tech companies are held. When tech platforms don’t self govern adequately, the PROTECT Act would lay out a national policy that sets the standard, ensures enforcement, and imposes penalties should self-governance fall short.
While social media is only one component of a broader, complex mental health crisis among youth, the lawsuits against Meta and Congressman Patronis are sending a clear signal: financial payouts are not enough. Monetary settlements are inadequate and serve as a poorly placed financial bandaids after the damage is done.
Patronis’ PROTECT Act further signals that it’s time for big tech to be held accountable. That accountability starts now.
by V. Venesulia Carr
Reporting for Duty
V. Venesulia Carr is a United States Marine Corps, Newsmax Insider News Columnist, host of the television show "Down to Business with V., and CEO of Vicar Group, LLC. She provides insight on technology, cybersecurity, fraud mitigation, national security, and military affairs.
#Patronis #JimmyPatronis #PROTECTAct #Section230 #Policy #Legislation #SocialMedia #Technology #TechGiants #TechPlatforms #Instagram #Facebook #Meta #YouthMentalHealth #Congress #CongressmanPatronis #BigTech #Uthereim #COPPA #DigitalFentanyl #DopamineMining #Algorithm #Venesulia #VenesuliaCarr #VVenesulia
