---
title: "Courts & Liability"
description: "The tobacco moment. In March 2026, juries found Meta and Google liable for harms to young users. Here is what that means."
url: https://attentionmachine.org/en/laws/courts/
lang: en
updated: 2026-10-25
license: "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)"
---

# Courts & Liability

For decades, tobacco companies were protected by the argument that they sold a legal product. Liability came when courts accepted that the product was designed to be addictive and the companies knew. That argument is now being made against social media platforms, and the first two juries to hear it accepted it, in verdicts that are not yet final.

## The legal theory

Section 230 protects platforms from liability for user-generated content. But some design choices — what parental controls exist, how a user's age is checked, how hard it is to delete an account, whether users were warned of what the company knew — are not content. They are engineering decisions. Courts are now finding that platforms can be held liable for a defective design, even where they cannot be held liable for harmful content. Where the feed's own features fall — the infinite scroll, autoplay, the recommendation algorithm, the timing of notifications — is the line still being drawn: the federal judge in the main US litigation held those claims barred in 2023[^src-dla-2024], while the Third Circuit let a suit over TikTok's recommendations go ahead in 2024[^src-court-appeals-2024].

> **Product-liability / design defect**
>
> A branch of law that holds the maker of a product responsible when the product is built in a foreseeably harmful way — independent of anything a user did with it. Applied to platforms, the claim partly sidesteps Section 230: it is not about the content users posted (immunised) but about the company's own engineering choices (not immunised). The related "failure to warn" claim argues the company knew of the harms, from public studies or its own research, and did not warn users.
>
> **Sources**
>
> - [TechPolicy.Press — MDL 3047 case tracker](https://www.techpolicy.press/tracker/social-media-adolescent-addictionpersonal-injury-products-liability-litigation-mdl-no-3047/).
> - US District Court for the Northern District of California (14 November 2023), [_In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation_, No. 4:22-md-03047-YGR, order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.401490/gov.uscourts.cand.401490.430.0.pdf) (Dkt. 430) — the failure-to-warn claims "survive dismissal"; the duty arises from the companies' "knowledge, based on public studies or internal research, of the ways that their products harm children".

## The wave of lawsuits

- **October 2022.** Dozens of personal-injury suits over young people's use of social media were pooled into multidistrict litigation (MDL 3047[^src-judicial-panel-2022]) in the Northern District of California. Suits by school districts were added later[^src-judicial-panel-2023], and by September 2026 3,383 lawsuits had been filed in it[^src-judicial-panel-2026].

- **October 2023.** More than 40 US states sued Meta[^src-california-attorney-2023] over harm to children and teens: 33 of them together, in the same federal court as the MDL, and eight in their own state courts.

- **14 November 2023.** The federal judge overseeing the MDL ruled[^src-dla-2024] that Section 230 and the First Amendment do not shield platforms from claims about some of their own design choices — failure to warn, and features such as missing parental controls, weak age checks and barriers to deleting an account — while the claims against the endless feed, the recommendation algorithms and the timing of notifications were held barred.

- **27 August 2024.** The Third Circuit[^src-court-appeals-2024] found that TikTok must face a lawsuit after its algorithm exposed a 10-year-old to a dangerous challenge resulting in her death.

- **26 August 2026.** The states' case did not reach a verdict: days into the trial, Meta settled[^src-state-california-2026] with 51 US attorneys general (47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands) — a minimum of $12.1 billion and up to $17.1 billion over ten years, and, for under-18s, a default daily limit of two hours, a block between midnight and 6 am, no visible like counts and no cosmetic filters, checked by an independent auditor. The court entered the consent judgment the same day; Meta denied the allegations and admitted no liability.

- **1 September 2026.** The families' and school districts' own cases are not part of that settlement: 3,208 lawsuits were pending[^src-judicial-panel-2026] in the consolidated proceedings.

> **Multidistrict litigation (MDL)**
>
> A US procedure that pools many separate lawsuits making similar claims before a single judge for the shared pre-trial stage — gathering evidence once rather than thousands of times. It is not a class action: the individual cases keep their own identity and can be tried separately. MDL 3047 consolidates the social-media youth-harm suits; its scale (thousands of cases) is itself part of why the litigation is consequential.
>
> **Sources**
>
> - [TechPolicy.Press — MDL 3047 case tracker](https://www.techpolicy.press/tracker/social-media-adolescent-addictionpersonal-injury-products-liability-litigation-mdl-no-3047/).
> - US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (1 September 2026), [Pending MDL dockets by district](https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-September-1-2026.pdf) — MDL 3047: 3,208 pending actions (3,383 filed in total).

## March 2026: the first verdicts

Juries in New Mexico and California delivered landmark verdicts: against Meta in New Mexico, and against Meta and Google's YouTube in Los Angeles. In New Mexico, a jury found Meta violated consumer protection laws[^src-new-mexico-2026] by misleading users about the safety of its platforms — awarding $375 million in civil penalties. In California, a Los Angeles jury awarded $6 million[^src-associated-press-2026] to a plaintiff who testified that she had become addicted to social media as a child, finding that both companies acted with malice, oppression or fraud. Meta, which owns Instagram, was found 70% responsible; YouTube 30%.

Neither verdict is final. In Los Angeles, the trial judge refused in June 2026 to overturn the verdict or order a new trial; Meta and YouTube then filed appeals[^src-cnbc-2026] in July. In New Mexico, the judge ordered Meta in August 2026 to pay a further $567 million into a fund for treatment and prevention, bringing the judgment to $942 million[^src-new-mexico-2026]. Meta has said it will appeal, and has asked the court to pause payment while it does.

## The tobacco comparison

The tobacco analogy is instructive and limited. In the 1990s the tobacco industry was forced, through state lawsuits and the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement[^src-national-association-1998], to answer for four things — and in 2006 a US federal court found the companies liable for a scheme to defraud smokers and potential smokers on exactly those points[^src-district-court-2006]. The plaintiffs allege all four against the platforms:

- **Knowing.** Tobacco knew its product was addictive[^src-district-court-2006]; the Haugen documents[^src-facebook-files-2021] show internal knowledge of harm.

- **Concealing.** Tobacco hid that knowledge[^src-district-court-2006]; here, the states allege[^src-california-attorney-2023] that Meta continued “to conceal and downplay its platforms’ adverse effects”.

- **Engineering.** Tobacco engineered its product to increase addictiveness[^src-district-court-2006]; here, features are engineered to maximise engagement.

- **Targeting the young.** Tobacco targeted young people[^src-district-court-2006]; here, the states allege[^src-california-attorney-2023] “a business model focused on maximizing young users’ time on its platforms”.

Where it breaks down: cigarettes cause physical addiction through a well-understood chemical mechanism. Whether social media design causes psychological harm, and how far, is contested: the link is [well documented as a correlation](https://attentionmachine.org/en/symptoms/mental-health/), the pathway is more complex, and individual variation is large. The analogy illuminates the litigation strategy; it does not describe an identical mechanism.

**How we know — why the design theory works where content claims fail**

For two decades, suits against platforms died on Section 230: the harm was traced to user content, and platforms aren't liable for that. The litigation now succeeding reframes the target. It does not ask the jury to find a post unlawful; it asks whether the company's own product decisions — engagement-maximising features, notification timing, recommendation of harmful material to minors — were negligent or defective, and whether the company knew. Content is the user's; design is the company's. That reframing is what the March 2026 verdicts[^src-new-mexico-2026] accepted, and what the November 2023 MDL ruling[^src-dla-2024] accepted in part: it let the claims about parental controls, age checks, account deletion and failure to warn go forward, and held those against the endless feed, the recommendation algorithms and notification timing barred.

**What the verdicts do and don't establish.** They are first-instance jury findings — powerful signals, but both are being appealed[^src-cnbc-2026], so they are not yet settled appellate law. And note the framing discipline: outside the courtroom this site avoids calling users "addicted", because that wording shifts responsibility onto the user and is contested science. Inside the litigation, "addiction" is the plaintiffs' legal claim and the language of the verdicts, so we report it as such — the term belongs to the case, not to our description of users.

## Sources

[^src-judicial-panel-2022]: US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (6 October 2022), [transfer order creating MDL 3047](https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3047-Initial-Transfer-Order-9-22.pdf) — 28 actions in 17 districts, with 56 related actions notified since the motion, centralised in the Northern District of California.

[^src-judicial-panel-2023]: US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (6 December 2023), [transfer order on the Livingston Parish School Board's suit](https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3047-Transfer_Order-11-23.pdf) — "Since we centralized this litigation, we have transferred numerous cases brought by school districts".

[^src-california-attorney-2023]: California Attorney General (24 October 2023), [_Attorney General Bonta Files Lawsuit Against Meta Over Harms to Youth Mental Health_](https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-files-lawsuit-against-meta-over-harms-youth-mental-health) — a coalition of 33 attorneys general in the Northern District of California; eight more filed in their own state courts the same day.

[^src-judicial-panel-2026]: US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (1 September 2026), [Pending MDL dockets by district](https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-September-1-2026.pdf) — MDL 3047: 3,208 pending actions (3,383 filed in total).

[^src-state-california-2026]: State of California et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal., No. 4:23-cv-05448-YGR, in MDL 3047), [_Consent judgment and settlement agreement_](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/23-05448-ecf-572-1-exhibit-1-mdl-consent-judgment-final-settlment-agreement-fully-executed.pdf), entered 26 August 2026; New Jersey Attorney General (26 August 2026), [_Historic $17 billion settlement with Meta_](https://www.njoag.gov/attorney-general-davenport-announces-historic-17-billion-settlement-with-meta/) — "a minimum of $12.1 billion, and up to $17.1 billion"; claims by 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands; the court's approval that day; Hunton (31 August 2026), [_Court approves Meta settlement with 29 states_](https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-cybersecurity-law-blog/court-approves-meta-settlement-with-29-states-over-alleged-harms-to-children-and-teens) — the 29 states whose federal case was on trial; the trial halted before its fifth day; Meta "did not admit liability or wrongdoing".

[^src-dla-2024]: DLA Piper (January 2024), [_Court addresses social media liability in adolescent addiction litigation_](https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2024/01/navigating-the-digital-dilemma-court-addresses-social-media-liability-in-adolescent-addiction) — summary of the 14 November 2023 ruling on Section 230 and the First Amendment; the order itself: US District Court for the Northern District of California (14 November 2023), [_In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation_, No. 4:22-md-03047-YGR, Dkt. 430](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.401490/gov.uscourts.cand.401490.430.0.pdf) — claims over parental controls, age verification, barriers to deleting an account and failure to warn not barred; claims over the feed's lack of a "beginning and end", the "use of algorithms to promote addictive engagement" and the timing and clustering of notifications barred.

[^src-new-mexico-2026]: New Mexico Department of Justice (August 2026), [_Court Orders Meta to Pay $942 Million and Overhaul Protections for Children on Facebook and Instagram_](https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/court-orders-meta-to-pay-942-million-and-overhaul-protections-for-children-on-facebook-and-instagram-in-landmark-new-mexico-ruling/) — $375 million in civil penalties (jury, March 2026) plus a $567 million abatement fund (court, August 2026). Meta has said it will appeal; _Santa Fe New Mexican_, [_Meta asks New Mexico court to stay enforcement of $942 million judgment pending appeal_](https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/meta-asks-new-mexico-court-to-stay-enforcement-of-942-million-judgment-pending-appeal/article_40aca50f-aee2-4b7a-8c23-d80c21d0c543.html).

[^src-cnbc-2026]: CNBC (10 June 2026), [_Google and Meta denied new trial in youth social media addiction case_](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/10/google-and-meta-denied-new-trial-in-youth-social-media-addiction-case.html); Fortune (15 July 2026), [_YouTube appeals verdict, argues it isn't a social media platform_](https://fortune.com/2026/07/15/youtube-appeals-social-media-addiction-verdict/) — Meta filed its notice of appeal days earlier.

[^src-court-appeals-2024]: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (27 August 2024), [_Anderson v. TikTok_](https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/223061p.pdf).

[^src-techpolicy-press]: [TechPolicy.Press — MDL 3047 case tracker](https://www.techpolicy.press/tracker/social-media-adolescent-addictionpersonal-injury-products-liability-litigation-mdl-no-3047/) (Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation).

[^src-facebook-files-2021]: [The Facebook Files](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039) — Frances Haugen's internal disclosures, Wall Street Journal and US Congress, 2021.

[^src-associated-press-2026]: The Associated Press (25 March 2026), [_Jury finds Instagram and YouTube liable in a landmark social media addiction trial_](https://wtop.com/national/2026/03/los-angeles-jury-reaches-verdict-in-landmark-social-media-addiction-case/) (as carried by WTOP) — $3 million in damages and a further $3 million in punitive damages; Meta 70%, YouTube 30%.

[^src-national-association-1998]: National Association of Attorneys General (1998), [_The Master Settlement Agreement_](https://www.naag.org/our-work/naag-center-for-tobacco-and-public-health/the-master-settlement-agreement/).

[^src-district-court-2006]: US District Court for the District of Columbia (8 September 2006), [_United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc._, No. 99-cv-02496 (GK), Amended Final Opinion](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2014/09/11/amended%20opinion_0.pdf), 449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (copy hosted by the US Department of Justice) — "a scheme to defraud smokers and potential smokers, for purposes of financial gain"; US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (22 May 2009), [_United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc._, No. 06-5267](https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2009/05/06-5267-1181914.pdf), 566 F.3d 1095 — affirming the finding of liability in large part: the companies falsely denied that nicotine is addictive, that cigarette design was manipulated to sustain addiction and that they marketed to youth, and suppressed research.

[← Laws & Regulation](https://attentionmachine.org/en/laws/)

---

Some content on this site was created with the assistance of AI tools and may contain errors. [How we use AI →](https://attentionmachine.org/en/about/how-we-use-ai/)