• by Wendy Davis , February 10, 2026

A federal judge on Monday rejected social media platforms' bid to end litigation by a Kentucky school district over claims that the platforms harmed students' mental health.

The ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California, paves the way for the Breathitt County School District to attempt to prove to a jury that YouTube, Meta, TikTok and Snap designed their services to addict minors, and then served them with potentially harmful material -- such as “challenges” that allegedly encourage people to attempt dangerous activity.

Breathitt is just one of more than 2,300 plaintiffs -- including more than 1,000 school districts -- to sue the platforms in federal court. Plaintiffs in the cases include attorneys general, teens and their families. (The platforms also face lawsuits in state courts, including in California.)

Rogers is handling schools' lawsuits by initially dealing with just six cases -- including Breathitt's. The other five initial cases concern complaints by school districts in Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey and South Carolina.

Breathitt argued in court papers that social media addiction resulted in students' poor sleep, emotional issues and conflicts with peers -- all of which "disrupted and harmed" the school environment, and "caused the district to expend and divert resources to address these harms."

For instance, Breathitt claimed it spent more than $62,000 or cellphone caddies, monitoring software and educational programs, and incurred more than $2,100 in damages related to a TikTok challenge.

The district also alleged that had to divert staff resources to dealing with issues caused by social media use, and estimates that cost at $2.2 million and $3 million.

The social platforms had urged Rogers to award them summary judgment -- meaning to rule in their favor, without holding a trial.

Among other arguments, the tech companies said the pre-trial depositions and other evidence didn't support claims that social media caused harm to students.

"Breathitt does not know whether any student has been diagnosed with a mental health issue linked to social media or how many mental health harms relate to students’ use of defendants’ platforms," the platforms argued, referencing a deposition given by a school guidance counselor.

"Breathitt routinely refers students with mental health issues to Kentucky River Community Care for counseling; but none of those referrals ever identified 'social media addiction' as the cause of any students’ mental health issues," the platforms added.

They also argued that the school district hadn't determine how many students used each Meta, TikTok, YouTube or Snap, and that the district lacked data regarding students' use of other online services -- including gaming platforms, and other social platforms.

"Breathitt lacks the most basic facts about social media use by its students -- it does not know what platforms a given student uses, how frequently its students use defendants’ platforms, what features they use, or what effects those features have on its students," the platforms argued.

"Breathitt’s evidence relates largely to its students’ use of smartphones or 'social media' generally. As a result, Breathitt cannot establish that any one of defendants’ platforms -- let alone the at-issue features of those platforms -- caused its students any harm or that Breathitt incurred expense as a result of that harm."

Rogers rejected those arguments, ruling that Breathitt presented enough evidence to warrant a jury trial.

"Assessing the evidence collectively, Breathitt has identified evidence ... that Breathitt students actually use each of defendants’ platforms; and that each defendant’s platforms are among the most frequently-used. A jury could reasonably infer from this evidence that it is defendants’ platforms that cause Breathitt’s purported harms," she wrote in a 31-page order.

Rogers previously ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as well as the First Amendment protected the platforms from many claims involving user-created content -- including claims that algorithmic recommendations of third-party content caused addiction.

That ruling, however, allowed the school districts to proceed with other claims -- including that the platforms failed to warn users about potential harms, failed to label photos that had been altered with filters, and failed to implement tools that would have limited time users spent on social media.

Breathitt County will be the first school district to go to trial against the platforms in federal court. The trial is expected to begin on June 12.