Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability

Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability

Case Caption: In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Case Number: 22-cv-03047-YGR
Judge: Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
Plaintiff: City of Providence and District Attorney Kevin Steele of Montgomery County, PA
Defendant: Meta Platforms, Inc., Facebook Holdings, LLC, Facebook Operations, LLC, Meta Payments Inc., Siculus, Inc., Instagram, LLC, Snap, Inc., TikTok, Inc., ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., TikTok Pte. Ltd., ByteDance Ltd., Google LLC, YouTube LLC

 

Kessler Topaz partners Joseph H. Meltzer and Melissa L. Yeates are currently serving in court-appointed leadership positions, representing school districts and local government entities nationwide (the “Local Government Entity Plaintiffs”), seeking redress for the youth mental health crisis caused by social media companies in a large multi-district litigation.

The Local Government Entity Plaintiffs allege that social media companies including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube, have deliberately designed, developed, produced, operated, promoted, distributed, and marketed their social media platforms to increase revenue at the expense of the nation’s minors. Allegations include that the social media companies use design mechanisms to maximize minors’ screen time and addict adolescent users, which in turn has caused a youth mental health crisis. This youth mental health crisis has been highlighted by various authorities, including the U.S. Surgeon General, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children’s Hospital Association. While Defendants profit off their harmful conduct, which keeps young users glued to their social media platforms, school districts and local communities have been forced to expend, divert, and increase human and financial resources to address the harmful consequences of Defendants’ conduct in causing the youth mental health crisis.

After local communities and school districts filed lawsuits seeking to hold social media companies responsible for their actions in courts across the country, these cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings before the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California. The Local Government Entity Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Master Complaint on March 27, 2024. Oral argument was held on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Master Complaint on May 17, 2024, and thereafter, Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued two opinions, on October 24, 2024 and November 15, 2024, that sustained the negligence claims in all at-issue states and the public nuisance claims in most of the at-issue states.

The Court then initiated a process for selecting bellwether cases for discovery and trial purposes. Six trial bellwether school districts have since been chosen, and the parties have moved through fact and expert discovery, including expert depositions. The Court selected Breathitt County School District in Kentucky, Tucson Unified School District in Arizona, and Charleston County School District in South Carolina as the first bellwether cases.

Defendants filed six motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions seeking to exclude Plaintiffs’ general causation and school district specific experts, as well as a motion to exclude expert opinions based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, on September 30, 2025. Plaintiffs opposed these motions on November 7, 2025, with KTMC leading the opposition to Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ school district specific experts. Defendants filed replies in support of their motions on December 5, 2025.

On January 26, 2026, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants’ summary judgement and Daubert motions. At the hearing, KTMC partner Melissa Yeates presented argument on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and defended the school districts’ future damages and abatement remedies. The Court issued orders in February and March 2026 broadly denying Defendants’ motions to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts and denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the claims of bellwether Breathitt County School District.

The first bellwether trial on behalf of Breathitt County School District, was scheduled to begin in June 2026. However, on the eve of trial, all four Defendants reached a settlement with Breathitt County. The Court has scheduled trial for the next two bellwether cases—Tucson Unified School District and Charleston County School District—for February 2027, in Oakland, California.