Case
Court / Jurisdiction
Filed / Status
Core Allegations & Design at Issue
Legal Theory
Outcome & Why It Matters
K.G.M. v. Meta & Google/
YouTube
JCCP 5255Los Angeles Superior Court (CA state coordinated proceeding)
Trial Feb–Mar 2026
VERDICT Mar 25, 2026
A young woman who began using social media as a child alleged that prolonged Instagram and YouTube use drove anxiety, depression, compulsive use, body dysmorphia and validation dependency. Design at issue: infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, algorithmic recommendations and public like counts engineered to maximize engagement.
Negligent product design; failure to warn; product liability — pleaded around Section 230 by targeting design, not user content.
The jury found Meta and Google negligent and awarded ~$6M ($3M compensatory, split Meta 70% / Google 30%, plus $3M punitive). TikTok and Snap settled before trial. The first state bellwether to reach a verdict — a template for thousands of pending claims.
State of New Mexico v. Meta
First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe, NM
Brought by NM Attorney General
~7-week trial
VERDICT Mar 24, 2026
State alleged Meta knowingly exposed minors to sexual exploitation, predatory contact and addictive systems. Investigators created a decoy 13-year-old profile and received rapid inappropriate solicitations, and alleged Meta concealed what it knew about harm to minors.
NM Unfair Practices Act — false/misleading statements and “unconscionable” trade practices exploiting children’s inexperience; public-nuisance remedies still being litigated.
The jury found Meta liable; thousands of separate violations totaled an initial $375M penalty. A follow-on bench phase seeks platform reforms and potentially far larger remedies. A landmark state-enforcement win.
Anderson v. TikTok (Estate of Nylah Anderson)
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
On appeal from E.D. Pa.
Decided Aug 27, 2024 Remanded; proceeding
A ten-year-old died after a viral asphyxiation “challenge” was served to her For You Page. Allegation: TikTok knew the trend was spreading, knew its algorithm pushed it to children, and continued. Design at issue: the recommendation algorithm itself.
Negligence, wrongful death and product liability tied to the recommendation engine rather than the underlying videos.
Third Circuit ruled the algorithm reflects TikTok’s own first-party conduct, not protected third-party content, so Section 230 does not bar the claims — an attorney called it the loss of Big Tech’s “get-out-of-jail-free card.” Sent back for trial on the merits.
United States v. TikTok & ByteDance
U.S. District Court, Central District of California (No. 2:24-cv-06535)
DOJ on behalf of FTC
Filed Aug 2, 2024 Pending / ongoing
The government alleges TikTok let children create accounts, collected and retained their data without verifiable parental consent, shared it with third parties, and breached a 2019 federal consent order — even within “Kids Mode.” A repeat, not a first, offense.
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and breach of the prior FTC consent order; civil penalties sought up to $51,744 per violation per day.
TikTok’s predecessor paid $5.7M to settle in 2019 and promised to stop; the DOJ alleges collection continued. Tests whether a fine is a deterrent or merely overhead — and whether “checking the box” ever amounted to parental consent.
Garcia v. Character Technologies (and related AI-companion suits)
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (No. 6:24-cv-01903); related cases in CO, NY, TX
Defendants incl. Character.AI founders & Google
Filed Oct 2024
Settlements mediated Jan 2026
Families allege AI “companion” chatbots built emotionally and sexually charged relationships with minors, encouraged dependency, and failed to intervene on expressed self-harm — contributing to teen deaths. Design at issue: engagement-optimized, human-like AI marketed to young users.
Wrongful death, negligence, product liability and deceptive-trade-practice claims; defense that chatbot output is protected speech was rejected by the court.
A judge let the wrongful-death claims proceed, rejecting an AI free-speech shield; the companies then moved to settle a cluster of cases. The first courtroom test of AI-system liability for harm to children — the frontier has moved from feeds to AI.
In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction (MDL 3047)
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Consolidated federal multidistrict litigation
~2,600+ cases
First federal bellwether trial set Jun 15, 2026
Thousands of families, school districts and states allege Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube were engineered with addictive features that harmed youth mental health — depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm and suicidal ideation.
Coordinated negligence and product-liability theories; the central fight is whether Section 230 shields platform design choices.
Breathitt County School District is the first federal bellwether, scheduled for trial June 15, 2026. Bellwether outcomes set the pace and settlement value for the entire docket — one of the fastest-growing MDLs in the system.
State of Florida v. OpenAI & Sam Altman
Florida state court
Brought by FL Attorney General; Altman named personally
Filed Jun 1, 2026
Pre-trial / ongoing
State alleges OpenAI prioritized speed and profit over safety, suppressed internal and external safety warnings, and marketed ChatGPT as safe — including for children — while collecting kids’ data without parental oversight. The complaint also raises broader claims that the product can facilitate self-harm and violence.
Deceptive and unfair trade practices, negligence, product liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, and public nuisance; the AG seeks to hold Altman personally liable.
The first state-led lawsuit against an AI company and its CEO. Florida seeks civil penalties and a court order barring data collection from under-13 users without parental consent. OpenAI disputes the claims. No verdict — but a direct test of the consent question at the heart of this piece.
Filed just weeks before publication, this case signals that AI platforms are now in the crosshairs alongside social media, and that the consent question at the heart of this piece has reached the CEO level.