Who Has Filed Cases
As of August 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reported 3,137 pending federal actions in MDL No. 3047, the multidistrict litigation centralized in the Northern District of California before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.[8] That count is federal only and does not include the California state court coordinated proceeding, JCCP 5255.[8]
The defendants in the personal injury and school district litigation are Meta (the parent of Facebook and Instagram), Snap (the maker of Snapchat), TikTok and its parent ByteDance, and Google (the owner of YouTube). The plaintiff groups are individuals and families, school districts and other public entities, state attorneys general, and tribal governments.[7]
The first verdict in this litigation came in March 2026 in a California state court case brought by a 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M.[5] The first federal bellwether was a school district case brought by Breathitt County, Kentucky, which settled before trial in May 2026.[3] A bipartisan coalition of 51 state attorneys general announced a proposed settlement with Meta in August 2026.[8] These are separate tracks of litigation. The states' settlement with Meta does not end the broader litigation; thousands of claims brought by young people, families, and public school districts remain pending in MDL No. 3047 against Meta, TikTok, Snap, and YouTube.[9]
What the Filed Cases Have in Common
Plaintiffs in MDL No. 3047 allege that design features including infinite scrolling, algorithm-driven recommendations, notifications, and other engagement tools were designed to encourage prolonged use.[8] The California Attorney General's lawsuit alleges that Meta designed and deployed harmful features on Instagram and Facebook that drive compulsive use by children and teens, while misleading users, families, and the public about the existence and severity of the risks.[8] These are allegations. A settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing.[8]
The U.S. Surgeon General's 2023 advisory, Social Media and Youth Mental Health, reports that up to 95% of youth ages 13 to 17 use a social media platform. It cites a longitudinal study of U.S. adolescents ages 12 to 15 finding that those who spent more than 3 hours per day on social media faced double the risk of poor mental health outcomes, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, and notes that as of 2021 8th and 10th graders averaged 3.5 hours per day. The advisory says social media has both positive and negative effects on young people, that critical questions remain unanswered and there are known evidence gaps, and that it cannot be concluded that social media is sufficiently safe for children and adolescents. An advisory is a public health statement. It is not a court finding about any company.[2]
No Court Has Set Eligibility Criteria
No court has issued a ruling that defines who is eligible to file a claim in this litigation. There is no settlement fund or claims process for individual families at this time.
The states' proposed settlement with Meta provides for a monetary payment of up to $17 billion to the states over ten years, and injunctive terms including default daily time limits, a block on overnight use that only a parent can lift, enhanced parental supervision tools, age assurance measures to detect users under 18 and children under 13, and an independent auditor. The payment goes to the states. The announcement describes no fund, claim form, or claims process for individual families.[8]
The first federal bellwether, brought by Breathitt County, Kentucky, settled before trial with Snap, TikTok, YouTube, and Meta in May 2026. Terms were not disclosed; Reuters reported a combined value near $27 million. This was a school district settlement, not a payment to families.[3]
The first verdict in this litigation came in March 2026 in K.G.M. v. Meta and YouTube, a bellwether case from California's coordinated proceeding. A Los Angeles Superior Court jury found Meta and Google's YouTube negligent and liable for harm to the plaintiff and awarded $6 million in total damages. The jury deliberated for more than a week. Meta said it disagreed with the verdict and was evaluating its legal options. YouTube said it disagreed and planned to appeal. The verdict applies to this one plaintiff.[5] The award broke down as $3 million in compensatory damages, split 70% to Meta and 30% to YouTube, plus $3 million in punitive damages, of which Meta was ordered to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000. Totals: $4.2 million for Meta and $1.8 million for YouTube.[6] Snap settled with plaintiff K.G.M. shortly before trial; the amount was not disclosed and Snap did not admit liability.[3] TikTok settled with plaintiff K.G.M. on the day jury selection was scheduled to begin; terms were not publicly disclosed.[4]
Law firms set their own criteria for which cases they will accept. Those criteria are not court rulings and do not bind other firms or the court.
Practical Hurdles the Record Shows
The record we track does not show whether arbitration clauses, forum selection clauses, or other contractual terms have been raised as defenses in the personal injury cases, or how courts have ruled on them. The record does show that bellwether trials have begun in both state and federal court, which indicates that at least some cases have proceeded past preliminary defenses.
Multidistrict litigation is a process in which federal cases from around the country are transferred to a single judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings. It does not create a class action or a settlement fund unless the court approves one. Each case remains a separate lawsuit. The California coordinated proceeding, JCCP 5255, operates similarly under state rules.
Bellwether trials are test cases selected to help the parties and the court understand how juries may respond to the evidence and arguments. Outcomes in bellwether trials do not bind other plaintiffs or defendants, but they can influence settlement negotiations.
What Is Not Known Yet
The record we track does not show how many cases are pending in the California state court coordinated proceeding, JCCP 5255.
One tracker reports that the K.G.M. verdict was allowed to stand and that Meta is appealing, but this has not been verified from the court record.[10]
Whether the court has entered the consent judgment approving the states' settlement with Meta has been reported but not verified from the docket. One outlet reported approval the same afternoon the settlement was announced; another reported it had not yet been entered.[11]
The next personal injury bellwether trials in JCCP 5255 before Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl are reported as set for October 2026, but trial dates move often and this has not been verified from the court record.[10]
The next federal school district bellwether trials, involving Tucson Unified and Charleston County, are reported as set for February 2027, but this has not been verified from the docket.[12]
The record we track does not show whether any court has ruled on the merits of the claims against TikTok, Snap, or YouTube in cases that went to a decision rather than settlement. The K.G.M. verdict addressed Meta and YouTube.[5]
No court has issued findings about causation, about what level or type of social media use may cause harm, or about which young people may have been harmed. The Surgeon General's advisory notes that critical questions remain unanswered and there are known evidence gaps.[2]
Records to Gather and Questions to Ask
Families considering whether to speak with a lawyer may find it helpful to gather the following records and information:
- Medical records documenting any mental health diagnosis, treatment, or hospitalization
- School records, including attendance, disciplinary actions, and communications with counselors or administrators
- Documentation of social media account creation dates, platforms used, and any available usage data
- Records of therapy, counseling, psychiatric care, or medication
- Any communications with the young person's healthcare providers about social media use
- A timeline of when symptoms or behavioral changes were first noticed
- Information about other possible contributing factors, such as family history, trauma, bullying, or medical conditions
Questions to ask any lawyer include:
- What criteria does your firm use to decide whether to accept a case?
- What evidence would you need to evaluate our situation?
- How does your firm charge for its services, and what costs might we be responsible for?
- What is the current status of the litigation, and how long do cases like this typically take?
- What are the risks and possible outcomes if we file a claim?
- Are there any deadlines or statutes of limitation that apply to our situation?
- How would you communicate with us, and how often?
- Have you handled cases in this litigation or similar mass tort proceedings before?
For more on what the lawsuits allege, see our page on what the lawsuits allege. For the procedural history and current status, see our page on timeline and current status. For the medical and scientific context, see our page on the medical picture.
Sources
- U.S. Surgeon General Advisory (2023) (2023-05-23). Primary document: hhs.gov
- JCCP 5255, K.G.M. v. Meta (2026-01-22). Secondary report: mdlupdate.com
- JCCP 5255, K.G.M. v. Meta (2026-01-27). Secondary report: spencer-law.com
- JCCP 5255, K.G.M. v. Meta (2026-03-25). Secondary report: npr.org
- JCCP 5255, K.G.M. v. Meta (2026-03-25). Secondary report: foxnews.com
- MDL No. 3047 (2026-08-03). Secondary report: migliorelaw.com
- Case 4:23-cv-05448-YGR (MDL No. 3047) (2026-08-18). Primary document: oag.ca.gov
- MDL No. 3047 (2026-08-26). Secondary report: levinlaw.com
- JCCP 5255, K.G.M. v. Meta (2026-03-26). Secondary report: mdlupdate.com
- Case 4:23-cv-05448-YGR (2026-08-26). Secondary report: cnbc.com
- MDL No. 3047 (2027-02-01). Secondary report: openclassactions.com
Litigation facts on this page come from the TortIntel litigation record and the documents linked above. Last checked against that record on 2026-09-20. If you see an error, tell us and we will correct it.