A heartbreaking case from Italy is putting social media giants Meta and TikTok under fresh scrutiny as several families take legal action over what they believe are the harmful effects of algorithm-driven content on young users. At the center of the case is Rossella, a 12-year-old girl whose parents say her online activity changed dramatically in the months leading up to her death in 2024. The lawsuit has become one of the first major collective actions in Italy directly challenging how social media platforms recommend content to children and teenagers.
Rossella’s parents, Irene Roggero Ugues and her husband, say they were unaware of the extent of their daughter’s social media use until after her death. When they eventually gained access to her devices, they discovered accounts and online activity that had remained hidden from the family. Among the discoveries was a secret Instagram profile allegedly named “Just a dead pers0n,” using the number zero instead of the letter “o.” According to her parents, the account reflected a darker emotional state that had gradually developed away from the view of friends and family.
The family says Rossella began searching for depressive and self-harm related content in September 2023. What worries them most is their belief that social media algorithms repeatedly served similar material back to her, creating a cycle that became increasingly difficult to escape. Just five months later, Rossella was gone, leaving her family searching for answers and questioning the role technology may have played in her emotional decline.
A Lawsuit That Could Test Social Media Accountability
The legal action targets both Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, and TikTok. Families involved in the case are not only seeking compensation but also demanding stronger protections for minors and greater transparency around how recommendation systems work. The lawsuit arrives at a time when governments and regulators across Europe are paying closer attention to the impact social media may have on young users.
Speaking about her daughter’s experience, Irene described the situation as something that slowly grew beyond the family’s control. “At some point, it seemed to take on a life of its own, growing until it overwhelmed the cheerful, sociable side of her — the brighter part,” she told Reuters. She later compared the experience to a sudden illness, saying the family felt powerless as Rossella’s mental state appeared to deteriorate.
Without the influence of algorithm-driven recommendations, Irene believes her daughter’s struggles may have unfolded differently. “The progression of her distress — or psychosis, or whatever it was that I still cannot define — might have unfolded more naturally,” she said. Her comments reflect a growing concern among many parents who argue that recommendation systems can amplify vulnerable emotions rather than simply reflect them.
Meta and TikTok strongly reject the claims made in the lawsuit. Both companies say they have invested heavily in safety features designed to protect younger users. Meta pointed to its Teen Accounts program and various built-in safeguards, while TikTok highlighted its enforcement efforts, content moderation systems, and partnerships with suicide prevention organizations.
“We know parents worry about the safety of their teens online, which is why we’re consistently making changes to help protect teens,” a Meta spokesperson said. The company also stated, “We strongly disagree with these allegations, which ignore our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”
TikTok echoed a similar position, saying it removes more than 99% of content that violates its guidelines. The platform added, “We also continue to invest in safety measures to diversify recommended content, block potentially harmful searches and connect vulnerable users with support resources.”
Why Parents Say Existing Safeguards Are Not Enough
One of the central arguments from families involved in the case is that parental controls often fail to keep pace with how quickly children adapt to technology. Parents say many young users easily find ways around screen-time restrictions, content filters, and monitoring tools. As a result, they argue that the burden cannot rest entirely on families when platforms themselves design the systems shaping what children see online.
Valentina Muraglie, a board member of Italy’s association of large families, says the challenge has become nearly impossible for many parents. “Monitoring social media use is a full-time job. It would require parents to spend all their time doing it, and that is simply unrealistic,” she said. Muraglie pointed to her own son’s experience, saying his love for books gradually disappeared after smartphones and social media became part of his daily routine.
“Once he had a phone in his hand, at 16, little by little books started to disappear,” she told Reuters. “Within a few years he stopped reading altogether.” While every teenager’s experience is different, stories like these have fueled broader discussions about attention spans, digital dependency, and how recommendation systems shape behavior.
Europe Steps Up Pressure on Big Tech
The case comes during a period of increasing regulatory pressure on technology companies. Across Europe, lawmakers are debating stricter protections for minors, while regulators continue enforcing the European Union’s Digital Services Act. The legislation requires major online platforms to take stronger action against harmful content and better protect younger audiences.
Lawyer Stefano Commodo, who is leading the legal effort alongside the Italian parents’ association MOIGE, says the goal is not to eliminate social media altogether. Instead, he argues that platforms should remove features that may encourage excessive engagement among vulnerable users. “The goal is not to dismiss the benefits of social media, but to remove the technological and marketing mechanisms that make it harmful to the most vulnerable users,” he said.
The lawsuit also references scientific studies examining social media use and adolescent brain development. Some experts involved in the case argue that likes, notifications, and other engagement features trigger reward systems in the brain in ways that can resemble addictive behavior. Tonino Cantelmi, a plaintiffs’ advisor and director of the School of Specialisation in Cognitive-Interpersonal Psychotherapy in Rome, stated, “Each ‘like’ or notification triggers dopamine release, tying users to the platform in a way that resembles addiction.”
Not all specialists agree that the issue can be reduced to algorithms alone. Federico Tonioni, who heads the Web Psychopathology Centre at Rome’s Gemelli hospital, cautioned against simple explanations. “The healthiest approach when dealing with adolescents is to accept that we are unprepared,” he said. He also warned against relying solely on strict monitoring, adding, “If there is something dangerous, it is control over children. Young people need to be listened to. Control is not a healthy form of presence. The healthiest distance is trust.”
For Irene Roggero Ugues, the lawsuit is ultimately about awareness rather than blame alone. She says many parents still do not fully understand how recommendation systems work or how quickly online content can influence vulnerable young people. “We underestimated certain risks and didn’t know they existed, but others can still act. There’s no point keeping this to myself, and I don’t think Rossella would mind.”
As Europe continues to debate the responsibilities of technology companies, Rossella’s story has become part of a larger conversation about the relationship between young people, mental health, and the algorithms that increasingly shape their online lives.
