Social Media Harm Mass Tort Marketing Campaigns

A federal appeals court rejected an appeal from Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat, allowing over 3,000 lawsuits to move forward alleging that the social media platforms were designed to be addictive to young people and harmed their mental health.

 
The companies argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 should shield them from liability. The statute generally precludes providers and users of online services from being held liable for information provided by another person, but does not prevent them from being held legally responsible for information that they have developed or for activities unrelated to third-party content.

 
But the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the defendants cannot use Section 230 to escape lawsuits over addictive designs of apps. The social media companies were seeking to overturn a lower court ruling requiring them to face the thousands of federal lawsuits.

 
The companies contended that they should not have to wait until the litigation ends to challenge the lower court’s rejection ⁠of their immunity defense. The 9th Circuit said Section 230 provides a defense to liability, not immunity from lawsuits, so the appeal was premature.

A settlement was announced in a multistate lawsuit claiming that Meta intentionally designed addictive platforms that harmed young people’s mental health.

 
Cutting short a landmark trial, Meta agreed to pay $17 billion and add stronger child-safety measures to its Facebook and Instagram platforms to settle claims filed by 47 states.

 
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the money would be paid out over 10 years, with the state getting at least $1.5 billion if the settlement is approved by the court. New Jersey expects to receive at least $525 million. Massachusetts said it was in line for at least $366 million. Virginia’s share is worth $353 million.

 
“For years, Meta intentionally deceived the public about the addictive and harmful design features that have wreaked havoc on youth mental health,” Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said. The settlement “will put an end to these dangerous practices and deliver meaningful relief that will protect children from online harm.”

 
Along with the financial payouts, the agreement included several requirements Meta must make to its apps as part of a proposed “consent judgement.”

 
Those changes include daily usage limits and “nighttime blocks” for teenagers who use the company’s apps, “enhanced age assurance measures” that would prevent children from using them, and the creation of additional tools for parents and guardians.

 
Meta said in a blog post that it was “building on our longstanding efforts to empower parents and support teens.”

 
“Ensuring teens have a safe and productive experience on our platforms is an absolute imperative for Meta,” the company said. “We want to get this right for parents and teens, and that’s why we partnered with state attorneys general to set a new industry standard.”

 
The settlement was reached about a week after a trial began in California, in which Instagram head Adam Mosseri was set to take the stand for a second day and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was also expected to testify.

 
four of the states were seeking as much as $1.4 trillion in damages and changes to the company’s platforms.

 
In a separate case, A New Mexico court has ordered Instagram and Facebook parent company Meta to pay $567 million for an abatement fund to address harms to young people from its platforms.

 
In the second phase of a landmark trial, First Judicial District Judge Bryan Biedscheid said that $420 million of the total will be used for treatment services for young people. The rest will go toward awareness and prevention, screening services and other costs over the next five years.

 
The bench trial followed a jury’s verdict in March ordering Meta to pay $375 million for violating New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, and misleading the public on the risks of its sites for underage users’ mental health and risk of sexual exploitation.

 
As part of his ruling, Judge Biedscheid ordered Facebook and Instagram to build banner and informational screens to clearly explain its protection features, best practices and tools to address inappropriate comment, among other things, and display them regularly.

The judge also said Meta must turn off push notifications from 8 am to 3 pm on weekdays during the school year and 10 pm to 7 am on all other days for users under 18. New Mexico teen accounts also should automatically be set on private.

 
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said the ruling demonstrates that companies will be held accountable when their product designs knowingly put children at risk.

 
“Today’s decision is a victory for every parent who has worried about what social media is doing to their child and every child who deserves to grow up safer online,” he said in a statement.

 
Meta vowed to appeal the ruling. “We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and have been transparent about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors and harmful content,” the company said in a statement. “We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts.”

TikTok reportedly ‌agreed to a settlement in principle with a teenager who claimed the platform damaged his mental health.

 
The plaintiff is a 15-year-old Florida boy whose case was expected to be ⁠the second trial in California state court over claims social media platforms have been designed to be ​addictive to children, causing harm to their mental health.

 
The teen said he begam using social media at about age 8 and became addicted to it, losing sleep and suffering from depression and anxiety. He initially named four defendants: Google’s YouTube, Meta’s Instagram, Snap Inc’s Snapchat and ByteDance’s TikTok. YouTube settled in June, while Meta and Snapchat remained ​scheduled for a trial set to begin July 27.

 
More than 3,300 lawsuits involving addiction claims ​against social media companies from users and their families are pending in California state court. Another 2,600 cases brought by individuals, school districts, municipalities and states ‌are pending ⁠in California federal court.

 
In another development, the federal judge overseeing the social media addiction MDL denied Meta’s final attempt to throw out the lawsuit brought by nearly 30 state attorneys general before a trial scheduled to begin in August. The plaintiffs allege Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to addict children while allegedly withholding information about harms to minors from the public.

 
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that there are too many factual disputes for the case to be dismissed, including questions about Meta’s platform design, its knowledge of teen mental health risks, and whether it misrepresented those risks. The judge denied Meta’s bid for summary judgment on key claims based on deception, unfair practices and violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

 
The judge also found that Meta failed to comply with that law’s notice and parental consent requirements, granting summary judgment to the states on that issue.

Meta and other social media companies reached a settlement with a Kentucky school district over allegations that social media addiction harmed the mental health of children.

 
Meta and the operators of Snap, YouTube and TikTok will pay about $27 million to the Breathitt County School District. The settlement was reached prior to a planned June trial in California, in the first of over 1,200 lawsuits brought by school districts seeking compensation for costs they say they incurred dealing with children’s mental health issues from social media addiction.

 
The settlements did not require the companies to admit liability and include no ​agreements to make changes to the social media platforms. The companies have denied the allegations and say they take extensive steps ⁠to keep teens and young users safe on their platforms.

 
The lawsuits filed by school districts allege that social media companies designed addictive platforms that harmed students, worsened the youth mental health crisis, disrupted classroom learning, and forced schools to spend significant resources responding to the damage.

 
In March, Meta and YouTube were found liable for designing addictive features following a trial in Los Angeles. The jury awarded about $6 million in damages to the plaintiff, who claimed she became addicted to social media as a child and that it exacerbated her mental health struggles.

Meta and YouTube asked a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to overturn the landmark jury verdict in March that found both social media companies were negligent in the design or operation of the platforms and failed to warn users of their dangers.

 
A jury determined that Meta must pay $4.2 million in combined compensatory and punitive damages, and YouTube must pay $1.8 million in the bellwether case brought by a 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M. who alleged that, beginning as a child, she developed severe depression, anxiety, and addiction-like behavior from using Instagram and YouTube.

 
As expected, Meta and Google’s YouTube are now appealing the verdicts, asking Judge Carolyn Kuhl to either throw out the charges or at least order a new trial.

 
In their appeal, the companies contend they are shielded from the plaintiff’s claims by Section 230 of the Communications Decency ​Act, a 1996 federal law that generally protects online platforms from liability over user-generated or third party content. The defendants said that ‌evidence ⁠presented at trial repeatedly tied the woman’s mental health challenges to the content she viewed, rather than the design features like autoplay and infinite scroll.

 
The companies also argued in their filings that the verdict violated the First Amendment, claiming it prohibits liability for the “features” of a social media platform.

 
Meta, YouTube and other social media companies are facing thousands of similar lawsuits filed ​by individuals and families ​in both federal and ⁠state court, as well as lawsuits filed by school districts and states.

 
Responding to the appeal, the plaintiff’s legal representation team said they are “not surprised by these motions.”

 
“Meta and YouTube have raised these same arguments at every stage of this litigation, and we expect Judge Kuhl to reject them as she has before,” the team said. “The verdict in K.G.M reflects what the evidence showed: that these platforms knowingly caused serious harm to a child. We have no doubt the jury deliberated carefully and thoughtfully in this historical bellwether case.”

Meta and Google were planning their appeals after a jury in Los Angeles found the tech companies negligent in the design or operation of their social media platforms. It was the first bellwether trial over allegations that the design of several social media and streaming video apps such as Instagram and YouTube caused teenagers and young adults to become addicted to the services and harmed their mental well-being.

 
The companies expressed their disagreement with the verdict as they vowed to appeal. “Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app,” a Meta spokesperson said. “We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”

 
The jury decided on $2.1 million in punitive damages for Meta and $900,000 for YouTube, totaling $3 million. The verdict is seen as potentially paving the way for thousands more lawsuits by parents, school districts, and states.

 
Snap and TikTok were also defendants in the trial. Both settled with the plaintiff before it began. Terms of the agreements ​were not disclosed.

A jury in Los Angeles found both Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark lawsuit over whether social media companies should be held accountable for harms caused to children using their platforms.

 
The plaintiff, a now 20-year-old California woman identified by the initials KGM, was awarded $3 million in damages. She claimed her early use of social media addicted her to the technology and worsened her depression and suicidal thoughts.

 
The jurors deliberated for nine days and over 40 hours, and decided Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design or operation of their platforms. The jury also decided each company’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff.

 
After determining that the companies acted with malice, or highly egregious conduct, the jurors were heard new evidence to decide on punitive damages. They returned to award $2.1 million in punitive damages against Meta and $900,000 against Google, bringing the total judgment against the companies to $6 million combined.

 
The outcome could influence thousands of similar cases against the tech companies brought by parents, attorneys general and school districts.

 
TikTok and Snap were also named defendants in the lawsuit, but they each settled before the trial began.

 
In a separate case, a New Mexico jury found Meta violated state law in a lawsuit brought by the state’s attorney general. The suit accused the company of misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp and of enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms.

Testimony began in a landmark trial in Los Angeles Superior Court over whether social media services were intentionally designed to cause teenagers and young adults to become addicted to the platforms, harming their mental well-being.

 
Attorneys representing the plaintiff, a now 20-year-old California woman identified by the initials KGM, claim her early use of social media addicted her to the technology and worsened her depression and suicidal thoughts. Meta Platforms and Google’s YouTube are the two remaining defendants in the case, following settlements reached by TikTok and Snap.

 
The case, along with two others, has been selected as a bellwether trial that could impact thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies.

 
Among those called to testify was Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, who defended his company against the lawsuit. Zuckerberg testified that children under 13 have never been allowed on Instagram, despite the plaintiff’s claim that she began using the platform at age 9.

 
But Mark Lanier, an attorney for the woman, showed an internal document from 2018 suggesting that Instagram believed about 4 million users were under 13 — roughly 30% of all 10 to 12-year-olds in the U.S. at the time.

TikTok and Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, both reached agreements to settle with the plaintiff in a social media addiction case days before the trial was to begin.

 
The trial was due to proceed as scheduled against the other defendants, Meta and Alphabet’s YouTube, in Los Angeles Superior Court.

 
It is the first lawsuit to go to trial among the cases brought by over 1,000 individual plaintiffs, hundreds of school districts and dozens of state attorneys general.

 
The cases focus on allegations that the design of several social media and streaming video apps such as Instagram and YouTube caused teenagers and young adults to become addicted to the services and harmed their mental well-being.

 
In another development, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a California case alleging that social media platforms are designed to be addictive to young users.

 
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, along with other social media companies, are appealing a district court decision denying them federal protections for some of the claims. The companies contend that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields them from liability stemming from what is posted on their sites, including allegations they failed to warn the public about the addictive nature of their platforms.

 
But the three appellate judges on the panel questioned whether it was too early in the process for the appeals court to consider whether the companies are immune from such claims. They noted that most appeals come after a court has made a final decision in a case.

 
The total number of pending actions in the federal social media addiction MDL grew to 2,243 throughout the month of December. Plaintiffs seek damages, penalties and restitution from the companies.

The judge overseeing the federal social media addiction MDL, Peter King, issued a ruling requiring Meta to produce more information about its policies for minors using platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. Siding with attorneys for the plaintiffs, the judge said Meta will have to provide written responses with greater details about these policies.

 
A report by Reuters cited new unredacted court filings in the MDL which allege that Meta curtailed internal research after early results suggested Facebook use could worsen mental health symptoms such as depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison.

 
Internal documents reportedly acknowledged a causal link between reduced platform use and improved well‑being. Plaintiffs allege the company chose not to continue the research or publish the findings. Plaintiffs also claim Meta misled Congress by saying that it had no ability to quantify whether its products were harmful to teenage girls.

 
A Meta spokesman said the study was stopped because its methodology was flawed and that the company worked diligently to improve the safety of its products, including substantial investments in youth safety features.

 
There are now 2,191 pending cases in the MDL, an increase of 19 lawsuits from November.

The national social media addiction MDL continues to grow, with a total of 2,172 pending lawsuits reported at the beginning of November. That was an increase of 119 from the previous month.

 
Among the new plaintiffs joining the litigation was the Hancock County School District in West Virginia, which voted unanimously to be part of the lawsuit against Meta, Google, TikTok and Snapchat. Over a dozen districts in West Virginia are considering or have joined the suit.

 
In Georgia, the DeKalb County School District also filed suit as part of the MDL, alleging that the major social media companies had deliberately designed addictive features that are contributing to an “Unprecedented mental health crisis” among students.

 
The county joined other school districts in claiming that the “Defendants’ conduct has forced schools to divert resources to mental-health counseling, social-emotional programs, and new classroom technology to combat distraction and addiction.” The school district says it has spent more $4.3 million on remedying the harms caused by student addictions to social media. The lawsuit alleges social media companies used tactics similar to those employed by big tobacco and gambling outlets to make platforms addictive to youth.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reported that the total number of pending lawsuits in the national social media addiction MDL stood at 2,053 at the beginning of October after over 100 families joined the litigation in September. It is one of the nation’s largest MDL proceedings.

 
Along with plaintiffs in the MDL, state and local authorities are also taking legal action against social media companies. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach filed a lawsuit against Snap, Inc., the creator of the SnapChat platform. The lawsuit alleges that Snap has engaged in deceptive acts that have caused substantial harm to Kansas consumers, particularly teenagers. The suit says that Snap falsely represents its Snapchat platform as safe for children, adding that Snap’s platform is intentionally designed to be addictive, “harming teenagers’ mental health and well-being.”

 
New York City filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing Facebook, Google, Snapchat, TikTok and other online platforms of addicting children to social media and contributing to a mental health crisis. Accusing the defendants of gross negligence and causing a public nuisance, the lawsuit alleges the platforms were designed to exploit the psychology and neurophysiology of children, leading to compulsive use and negative impacts on mental health.

The number of active cases in the national social media addiction MDL increased last month with nearly 100 plaintiffs bringing lawsuits. That brings the total to 1,961 cases as of the beginning of September.

 
11 lawsuits have been chosen to serve as the first bellwether trials in the litigation, with six school districts to go before the five suits from individual plaintiffs. It remains to be seen which of the school district cases will go first. The plaintiffs prefer the Tucson Unified School District lawsuit because of its readiness, ability to be a comprehensive test case, and its claims that include both negligence and public nuisance. The defense has pushed for the case of Irvington, New Jersey public schools, saying that its size and location best represent a typical school district.

The national social media addiction MDL is steadily expanding with 55 new cases added last month, bringing the total to 1,922 as of the start of August. No trial dates have been scheduled yet for the five personal injury cases and six school district cases that have been selected as bellwethers. On the state level, the California Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding litigation is advancing more quickly with Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl scheduling jury selection for the first bellwether trial to begin on November 19, 2025.

Utah’s Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against Snapchat over its alleged practices harming the mental health of the state’s children. The suit accuses Snapchat of creating an addictive and unsafe platform for teenagers through the use of special algorithms and AI that draw teens in and feed an addictive engagement pattern.

A new law in Minnesota taking effect in July of 2026 will require people using social media platforms to acknowledge a pop-up warning about mental health. The law, the first of its kind of the nation, is aimed at reminding social media users that the site they are accessing could be hazardous to their mental health. The warnings, which will be written by the Minnesota Department of Health, will be similar to those utilized for tobacco products or alcohol.

U.S. District, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is overseeing the social media addiction MDL in the Northern District of California, chose 11 lawsuits to serve as the first bellwether trials in the litigation.

The lawsuits include six school districts in Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey and South Carolina, along with five suits from individual plaintiffs that are expected to follow the school district trials.

The number of lawsuits pending in the MDL continues to grow, reaching a total of 1,867 at the beginning of July, an increase of 53 from June. More claims are expected to be filed in coming months due to growing awareness of the litigation by families of minors and young adults who experienced depression, anxiety, self-harm, eating disorders, and suicide after prolonged exposure to social media platforms. Many suits are filed under theories of strict liability, negligence, and fraudulent concealment.

The total number of claims in the social media addiction MDL rose to 1,814 last month after new lawsuits were filed.

A key ruling in the case was issued by Magistrate Judge Peter Kang, who denied the defendants’ attempt to have access to privileged therapy communications they said could be “potentially dispositive” to their defense. Two therapy records had been briefly produced and then pulled back due to therapist-patient privilege.

In a victory for the plaintiffs, Judge Kang decided that the documents were not relevant to the central claims of the case and did not meet the strict criteria required to override privilege protections. The judge emphasized that the therapy records did not address the primary allegations related to social media addiction and harm. The ruling means plaintiffs can move forward with litigation without concern their private mental health treatment will be exposed in court.

The number of cases in the group social media addiction lawsuit rose to 1,787 as of the beginning of May, an increase of 42 from last month.

Among the newest cases was a lawsuit filed by a plaintiff from Oregon against Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, LLC, Facebook Payments, Inc., Siculus, Inc., Facebook Operations, LLC, Snap Inc., and TikTok Inc.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants’ social media products are defectively designed, leading to addictive use and exposure to harmful content that impacted their daughter’s well-being and led to issues including depression, self-harm, and attempted suicide.

Young adults and parents are continuing to file hundreds of lawsuits alleging that social media exposure and addiction has led to severe mental health disturbances.

Nearly 500 more lawsuits in the federal multidistrict litigation against social media companies were filed in March, bringing the total at the beginning of the month to 1,745.

One of the most recent lawsuits was filed by a Georgia family who claimed that their daughter’s years of engagement with social media platforms such Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube led to a decline in her mental health and ultimately resulted in her death by suicide in April 2023 at age 19.

The start of March saw a total of 1,464 pending cases in the social media addiction MDL, with 212 new cases having been added in February.

A federal court recently allowed key negligence and wrongful death claims to proceed against major social media companies, marking a significant step forward in the ongoing social media addiction litigation. The judge rejected First Amendment and Section 230 defenses, finding that platforms may bear responsibility for encouraging compulsive use among youth.

Claims permitted under Indiana, Florida, Virginia, and Wyoming law will now be addressed within the multidistrict litigation framework. The court emphasized that public policy supports holding companies accountable for designing products that knowingly harm young users’ mental and physical health.

While the judge dismissed claims related to Child Sexual Abuse Material under Section 230, she underscored that negligence remains a flexible tool to address evolving harms. Requests for early appeals by Google and Snap were denied, which signals the court’s intent to move forward with the broader case.

The social media harm multi-district litigation (MDL) continues to expand. Last month, 252 new cases were filed, bringing the total to 1,246 as of early February.

A San Diego County lawsuit now joins the fight, targeting Meta, Google, Snapchat, and TikTok for allegedly using behavioral and neurobiological tactics to encourage compulsive platform use among students. Meanwhile, legal battles over state-level social media restrictions continue.

At the start of January, a total of 974 lawsuits were pending in the social media harm MDL against companies like Meta, Google, Snap, ByteDance, and Roblox, with 159 families joining in December 2024. Recently, the court ordered Google to comply with discovery requests about YouTube’s youth safety policies, marking a critical step forward. Meanwhile, Meta’s insurer is reportedly seeking to avoid covering liability in the litigation, further complicating the case.

At the beginning of December, the social media harm MDL recorded a total of 815 pending cases, with 195 new cases having been added in November, representing the highest monthly increase to date.

The magistrate judge ruled on December 11 that the plaintiff’s forensic expert can be deposed about his analysis of a reset iPhone. The phone, central to claims of social media-related harm, allegedly held critical usage data. The court limited deposition topics to the expert’s declaration, offering the plaintiff an option to withdraw it to avoid the deposition.

Judge Kang ruled against Meta’s objections to additional discovery, stating its efforts are minimal compared to what it has demanded from plaintiffs. The court ordered Meta to produce documents from its Chief Product Officer but denied broader requests, urging fairness. Bellwether trials are delayed, with the next conference scheduled for January 17.

A new lawsuit filed in the MDL on December 16 alleges that social media giants, including Meta, Snap Inc., TikTok, and Google, caused severe mental health harm to two adolescents. The family claims addictive design features and insufficient warnings contributed to compulsive use, depression, and self-harm. The plaintiffs seek damages, citing design defects and consumer protection violations.

November 19, 2024: Instagram Suicide Lawsuit

A Charlotte family claims Instagram’s algorithms and design fueled their 15-year-old son’s addiction, worsening his anxiety and depression. The lawsuit, filed by his father as estate administrator, alleges these factors contributed to the teen’s tragic suicide nearly three years ago.

November 13, 2024: NY Teen Joins Social Media Addiction MDL

A 17-year-old from Fishkill, New York has joined the social media addiction class action MDL. Her complaint alleges that prolonged use of Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube led to severe addiction, resulting in anorexia, depression, anxiety, and self-harm. The filing utilized the MDL’s streamlined Short Form Complaint process.

November 5, 2024: Family Joins Social Media MDL

A Philadelphia family has filed a new lawsuit within the social media MDL, alleging that platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat caused severe harm to their minor child, Z.C. Claims include defective design, failure to warn, and consumer protection violations, citing addiction, mental health struggles, and self-harm linked to platform usage.

By the end of the month, 27 new cases have been added to the social media addiction class action MDL, a substantial increase from the 10 added in September. Even though the case filings remain relatively low, the upward trend could work in favor of victims by possibly leading to higher settlement values and faster resolution times. The MDL currently includes 620 active cases.

October 11, 2024

A confidential settlement was reached in a sexual assault case involving Snapchat. The lawsuit claimed that Snapchat’s design features, including its “Quick Add” function, enabled predators to contact minors, resulting in harm. Plaintiffs argued that Snap’s negligence around user safety created a dangerous environment. Even as Snap invoked Section 230 protections, the plaintiffs drew attention to the platform’s role in facilitating harmful interactions.