Skip to main content


‌state court cases



VERMONT


  • State Attorney General has brought charges against Meta.
  • Civil suit charges Meta with violating state consumer protection act by creating addictive feeds and allowing those feeds to be distributed to minors.  
  • State claims those feeds are harmful to the mental health of minors.
  • Meta attempted to block the case from going forward.


Meta attempted to block this case from being brought, going all the way to the Supreme Court.  SCOTUS found that the state of Vermont could proceed with the case.


There are several AGs that are working on similar cases in their states, including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah.


Many state Attorneys General are also working on a single federal lawsuit addressing this issue. 

 



CALIFORNIA

 

  • Defendants are Meta (Instagram) and Google (YouTube)
  • Snap (Snapchat) and ByteDance (TicTok) settled out of court


The plaintiff in this case was a young girl, known in the court filings as K.G.M.  She  alleged 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




Update 3-25-26


  • Jury finds Meta and Google guilty of negligence
  • Damages were assessed at $3 million
  • This ruling could open the door for more lawsuits
  • Google and Meta say they will appeal 


This case is seperate from a case in northern California that has not yet be heard in a courtroom.

 

NEW MEXICO


  • State Attorney General brought charges against Meta
  • Charges focus on Meta negligence, negligence that has given sex predators an opportunity to target minors
  • Evidence includes an undercover investigation by the New Mexico Department of Justice
  • Opening statements began February 9, 2026



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:


  • Jury finds Meta has violated New Mexico's consumer protection law
  • Ordered the company to pay $375 million
  • Meta says they will appeal the decision. 
  • In the past, Meta has claimed that they are shielded from liability based on their Freedom of Speech and on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.


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


  • Filed in February of 2026
  • State Attorney General accuses Apple of neglecting to take adequate steps to prevent child online pornography (CSAM)
  • Civil Suit-West Virginia is alleging that Apple's behavior is at odds with their consumer protection laws and creates a public nuisance


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


 


Federal court cases

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


  • Free Speech Coalition v Paxton
  • Decided in 2025
  • Supreme Court found that a law passed in the state of Texas could stand.  
  • The law requires sites with a predominance of pornography to verify the age of their viewers using a government issued ID or other third-party verification services.  



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