Digital Addiction Litigation Tests Product-Liability Limits

Across the US, school districts are banding together, and parents are joining mass lawsuits in federal and state courts, looking to hold accountable social media companies whose design choices have made platforms central to everyday teenage life.

At a recent education law conference in Sacramento, Calif., lawyers were trading case notes about the last motion hearing; in the packed gallery, an attorney from Georgia described the surge of students referred to digital counseling since TikTok’s new engagement settings rolled out in January.

Courtrooms from California to New York are examining a key legal question: Does the way social media is built, not just the posts themselves, drive measurable psychological harm among children and adolescents?

Gone are the days when digital liability boiled down to user speech. Judges such as Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the federal multidistrict litigation and Carolyn Kuhl in California’s coordinated cases are focusing on design features rather than just user content.

Features such as endless scrolling, algorithmic alerts, and reward-based engagement systems—designed to keep users online longer—are under growing scrutiny for allegedly contributing to compulsive use, according to a major court ruling. Legal actions filed by more than 2,000 families, numerous school districts, and student groups claim these design choices have led to rising rates of anxiety, prolonged screen time, and behavioral challenges that educators say are becoming increasingly difficult to control.

Practical Tactics

Effective plaintiff’s lawyers are building their case by counting on courts’ increasing acceptance of expert testimony from pediatricians, neuroscientists, and behavioral psychologists as crucial evidence. Some successful examples of these tactics are:

• Requesting and examining platform communications on “user engagement,” “stickiness,” or “screen metrics.” In a recent California trial, internal WhatsApp chats from engineers cited a 17% increase in average session duration after a major interface overhaul.
• Using statistical analysis to connect school absenteeism or clinic referrals with algorithm changes. For instance, New York’s largest school district reported its highest-ever rates of digital-related counseling referrals in the six months after Instagram’s algorithm promoted viral challenge videos.
• Bringing in experts from multiple fields, human factors, addiction medicine, and child psychology, not only to showcase causation but also to “teach the jury,” as one trial attorney put it, “how a platform can become a compulsive tool.”

Laws and Leverage

Lawmakers responded to the dangers of screen time in 2025: California passed AB 56, New York advanced comparable warning-label bills, and Minnesota will require social media sites to post mental health warnings for all users. These legislative shifts arm lawyers with new arguments, if the government says warnings and limitations are needed, the absence of those features may well be negligence per se.

Weakening Defenses

While Section 230 continues to offer significant protection, especially in cases involving content moderation or serious issues such as abuse, child exploitation, or anonymity, its shield isn’t as impenetrable as it once was. Recently, courts have begun to draw clearer distinctions:

• Claims targeting a platform’s failure to verify users or moderate posts still often fail under Section 230.
• Those targeting inherently addictive product design, whether infinite scroll, notification “bursts,” or reward mechanics, are moving forward, especially when evidence shows intentional or reckless disregard for child safety.
• Attempts by Meta, Google, and Snap to force interlocutory appeals have met resistance, with courts arguing the public interest demands speedy trials and factual discovery.

Humanizing Harm

During trial prepation in Los Angeles, plaintiffs’ teams partnered with counselors and teachers for testimony. One widely cited complaint described a student who missed nearly 50 days of school after a platform changed its notification window, driving compulsive gaming and endless message alerts.

During a recent hearing, a New Jersey school administrator described parents pleading for districtwide “device holidays” after a cluster of sleep-deprivation cases linked to late-night viral video alerts.

For Defense Counsel

Defense teams are adjusting their playbook by rolling out visible usage nudge features, expanding parental controls, and launching public awareness campaigns about digital wellness. Meta has introduced time management dashboards to its products to give users a way to reduce their screen time, a timely argument as courts weigh whether “best efforts” count as due care.

Momentum is building to force reform. This month’s bellwether trial in California will feature evidence from six school districts, each struggling with rising disciplinary rates and resource drain. Analysts are watching to see whether schools and families will successfully prove addiction as a product defect or simply as a hazard that platforms failed to warn about. The verdict will influence settlement strategy and potentially the extent of legislative reform.

Lessons Learned

The whole game in digital litigation is changing. Heading into 2026 and the years after, successful lawyers will be the ones who manage to weave together compelling, real-world case stories with rock-solid data and truly inventive legal strategies. They also must watch carefully for shifts in platform design and new laws.

Judges aren’t satisfied with abstract arguments about free speech or content moderation anymore. What they want is to see concrete, undeniable links between tech and its effects on real-world behavior. Because of this, everyone involved must be adaptable.

The fight over technology liability won’t be settled by those who know what these platforms are capable of; it’ll be won by those who grasp how and why the design choices are molding the habits, health, and whole well-being of American kids.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Gregg Goldfarb is a personal injury attorney in Miami.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines