It is surprising to me that my comment is perceived as whataboutism and as if I am rooting for Meta (I do not see any such implication here). Far from it, as I do not like Meta and its product (I don't even have Facebook or Instagram app installed on my phone). I am merely saying that it is very tough to prove such case in the court as rigorous vetting is necessary and the onus to prove is on the plaintiff.
First of all, they need to define what "harmful" is as quantifiable variable(s). Then the states in this case must prove that the contents from Meta are harmful in this context. Lastly, they need to prove there exists a statistical causal link from such "harmful" contents to the mental well-being of the children. Many parents kind of "sense" social media is harmful, but I don't see how they can "prove" that social media is really "harmful"
The undergraduate Physics program is, in my opinion, heavily influenced by the working physicists in the field. Lots of physicist who work in fundamental physics is either particle physicists or work with models that are in particles. Those are the ones who teach physics in undergrad.