View this email in your browser

March 2026 Client Update on the Los Angeles and New Mexico Trial Verdicts

Dear Superintendent and Board Members,

We are writing to update you on an exciting and important development in the social media litigation that relates to the case we are handling for your district and other Texas public school districts.

We have been tirelessly tracking all elements of the national social media addiction litigation in an effort to most aggressively advocate for Texas schools. In a historic turn of events, two verdicts have been entered in the last 24 hours on behalf of an individual and a state attorney general that significantly influence the trajectory of the ongoing litigation.

$3,000,000 Award in an Individual Case

On January 27, a jury trial began in Los Angeles state court before Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl in the first “bellwether” case involving social media addiction. The plaintiff is a 19‑year‑old individual identified as K.G.M., who claims she became addicted to social media starting at age six and that this addiction led to serious mental health problems. Please note, this was NOT a school district case, but an individual with individual claims, therefore the evidence about the liability and addictive nature of the platforms are relevant to school district claims, but the damages are not directly comparable.

Before the trial, Snapchat reached a settlement in principle on January 20, and TikTok settled out of the case on January 26. As a result, the trial went forward only against Meta Platforms (the owner of Facebook and Instagram) and Google (the owner of YouTube).

One of the key questions for the jury in this case was whether these companies designed their platforms to keep young users “hooked,” using features such as frequent notifications, endless/infinite scrolling, and content‑feeding algorithms, and whether this design has contributed to mental health problems of this young lady, including depression, self‑harm, online bullying, and body dysmorphia.

After both sides finished presenting their evidence, the attorneys delivered their closing arguments to the jury on Thursday, March 11, 2026. This concluded the presentation of the case, and the jury then entered into deliberations to determine a verdict.

This morning, the jury returned its verdict. In summary, the Jury found that:

• Liability:

  • Both Meta and Google were negligent in their design of their social media platforms,

  • the platforms were dangerous for minors,

  • they knew the platforms were dangerous if used by minors,

  • they knew users would not know the dangers of the platforms,

  • they failed to warn the public of those dangers,

  • a reasonable person would have warned the public, and

  • the failure to warn was a substantial factor in the damages claimed.

• Damages (money awarded to the plaintiff directly):

  • $3,000,000.

• Other important findings:

  • Meta and Google acted with malice, oppression or fraud and the jury will be considering punitive damages next (this will most likely be after this update goes out so keep an eye on the news for further updates on this point).

This young lady’s individual case is one of thousands filed in the California state court system and is separate from the federal social media multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California where your case is filed along with thousands of other school districts across the country. The individual’s trial does not decide your district’s case, but because it is the first trial of its kind, it may influence how social media companies, courts, and other parties view and approach similar claims going forward.

New Mexico AG Secures 375 Million award against Meta

Additionally, a separate verdict came in yesterday where the Attorney General of New Mexico is seeking to hold Meta (Facebook and Instagram) responsible for failing to protect children from child predators online. A recent New Mexico jury verdict against Meta resulted in a $375 million award based on findings that Meta violated the state’s consumer protection laws through deceptive and harmful practices tied to the design and operation of its social media platforms. The case is significant because it reflects a jury’s willingness to credit evidence that Meta’s products were intentionally engineered in ways that could harm users, reinforcing core liability themes around addiction, foreseeability, and corporate knowledge that are central to the broader social media litigation.

At the same time, the verdict is not directly comparable to school district cases in the MDL: the New Mexico action was brought by the state under its consumer protection statute and sought statutory penalties for deceptive practices, whereas school district claims focus on recovering damages for institutional harms—such as increased counseling, staffing, and administrative costs—under different legal theories like public nuisance and negligence. Accordingly, while the verdict is an important indicator of how juries may view Meta’s conduct, it does not translate directly into a per-student or per-district damages framework.

Closing and Contact Information

There are still many hurdles to success in this litigation and we continue to soldier on. We will send a more detailed attorney client privileged video update at the end of the month. In the meantime, if you have questions about this trial or about your district’s case, please do not hesitate to reach out. We are here to support you and your district and welcome any inquiries or concerns you may have.

Thank you again for your confidence in our firms. We will continue to provide timely updates as the case progresses.

Sincerely,