
CALIFORNIA
The plaintiff in the case is a young girl, known in the court filings as K.G.M. She is alleging that the algorithms used by social media companies are intended to be addictive. While she is the high-profile name in this case, she is one of a larger group of people suing social media companies.
This case could have broad implications, including a revisiting of Section 230, a provision that currently prohibits people from suing social media platforms
Feb 11, 2026- Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, testifies for the defense. Part of his testimony included that he does not think that users can be "clinically addicted" to the social media app.
Feb 18, 2026- Mark Zuckerburg, founder of Facebook, (renamed Meta) testifies for the defense. Part of his testimony was his company does not seek to make its products addictive.
NEW MEXICO
This is another bell weather case that attempts to breach the protective bubble that currently surrounds the tech industry, a bubble formed by Section 230. While New Mexico is among the first states to bring this type of case to court, many other states are preparing for similar suits. The New Mexico State Attorney General has stated that he intends to investigate other platforms.
Update 3/24/26:
In May of 2026, the state will present their argument that Meta, in its current form, is a public nuisance. The state will be asking the judge to compel Meta to make changes to their platform if they want to do business in New Mexico.
West Virginia
Part of the complaint centers around the posting of content through end-to-end encryption. This encryption allows the content to remain private.
By law, online platforms are required to report CSAM. The state filing sites that "In 2023, Apple made just 267 such reports. By contrast, Google filed 1.47 million reports and Meta filed more than 30.6 million."
ago.wv.gov/article/west-virginia-attorney-general-sues-apple-role-distribution-child-sexual-abuse-material
Many of these cases start at the state level. If one of the parties involved in those cases does not agree with the outcome, they can appeal to a federal court. If one of the parties does not agree with the outcome in federal court, they can petition to have their case heard by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court
This case was a major step forward in establishing that the safety of minors supersedes the chilling effect of having people put in personal ID information to prove their age. This question of the mechanism of age verification often comes into play.
Since this Supreme Court ruling, many states have followed Texas's example by passing similar legislation.
Check to see if your state has passed any age verification laws by clicking the link here:
www.freespeechcoalition.com/faq
note the date at the top of the page