• by Steven Rosenbaum , Featured Contributor, 2 hours ago

Three years ago, this work began as a conversation, not a case. A group of people, some connected and some meeting for the first time, began asking what social media was actually doing to young people, to families, and to the broader culture. There was no single obvious path to change, and for a long time, it was not clear that any of it would break through.

Last week, something did. It felt like a line had been crossed, that we ended a chapter and began a new one.

To understand what changed, it helps to start with how unlikely it was that this case would even reach a jury. Litigation against major technology platforms has historically been stopped early, often before any substantive evidence is examined. Laura Marquez-Garrett, senior counsel at the Social Media Victims Law Center, which represented KGM. in the case, made that clear. “We told the parents, assume we lose. Because the odds are against us. The law is against us. The system is against us.” 

The pattern has been consistent. Cases are dismissed before discovery, before internal documents are produced, before claims can be tested against evidence. “What these companies have always done is kill cases early. No discovery. No documents. No truth,” Marquez-Garrett said. 

This case did not end there. It moved forward, and the reason, she argued, was not procedural but evidentiary. “What changed everything was truth.” Enough had already surfaced through earlier reporting, whistleblowers, and advocacy work to allow the case to survive motions to dismiss. That threshold proved decisive. Once the case advanced beyond that stage, the balance shifted.

“We had to climb Mount Everest after Mount Everest just to get to discovery,” Marquez-Garrett said. “Once we got past that, everything changed. We got discovery. Millions of documents.” 

The documentary record was significant, but it was not the only form of evidence. Families provided detailed accounts of harm. “The parents trusted us. They gave us everything: journals, data, medical records. We had entries from children as young as six,” Marquez-Garrett said. 

She then cited an example that had been entered into the record: “When I look at other girls’ profiles, it makes it harder. No one will ever love someone as ugly and broken as me.” She paused before adding, “That’s not theory. That’s evidence.” 

That distinction marks a shift in how these cases are understood. For years, the debate around social media harm has been shaped by studies and correlations. In this case, the court was presented with direct evidence of user experience, alongside internal documentation of how platforms were designed and operated.

Public attention has focused in part on the size of the damages awarded, but Marquez-Garrett argued that this misses the central point. “The goal here is not to get a big judgment in every single case. What matters is liability. What matters is that a jury found oppression, malice, or fraud,” she said. 

That finding carries broader implications than any individual award. Liability establishes a connection between harm and product design, rather than treating harmful outcomes as incidental. “We had jurors who wanted to award more… I would have taken a $1 verdict with that finding. Because what matters is what is now on the record. The documents. The findings. The precedent. That’s what changes the system,” Marquez-Garrett said. 

The focus on design is critical. For years, platforms have argued that they function as neutral intermediaries, hosting content created by users. The internal documents introduced in discovery complicate that claim. Marquez-Garrett pointed to language in company materials that suggested a more deliberate approach. “You have an extreme level of misconduct,” she said, citing internal statements such as “Tweens are herd animals” and “Get them young, the younger the better.” 

She also described reviewing materials that outlined strategies for reaching very young users, including children well below the commonly cited age thresholds for platform participation. The implication is not that harmful outcomes are unpredictable, but that engagement strategies may actively exploit known behavioral tendencies.

That raises questions about what accountability might mean for the broader technology ecosystem. One argument already emerging is that increased liability could stifle innovation or discourage new entrants. Marquez-Garrett rejected that framing. “That is the narrative these companies are going to want to spin, and it’s actually the exact opposite,” she said. 

In her view, the current market structure already disadvantages companies that attempt to build products without relying on highly addictive design patterns. “I know so many ethical programmers and designers who have said, I have all these great ideas, but I cannot break into the market because I’m not willing to addict kids,” she said. 

From that perspective, accountability could open the market rather than constrain it. “What’s hurting small companies is that these companies are addicting children and making it impossible for ethical designers and programmers to compete,” she said. 

She described a potential shift in terms of product design. “If we force them to get the digital nicotine out of these products, we might actually have choices. We might have 20 apps instead of two,” she said. 

Even as the legal framework begins to evolve, the human impact remains central. Toney Roberts, a parent who lost his daughter and has become an outspoken advocate for accountability, described the emotional complexity of the verdict: “You feel numb. You’re happy for Kaylee’s family… but as a dad who lost a daughter… it’s complicated,” he said. 

He added that the outcome does not erase the underlying loss. “You think about how many kids could still be here if something had been done earlier.” 

That sense of urgency informs how participants in the case are thinking about what comes next. The comparison to tobacco litigation is frequently raised, but it carries both relevance and risk. Tobacco cases unfolded over decades, with accountability arriving slowly. Marquez-Garrett emphasized the need to accelerate that timeline. “We have to speed that timeline up… now’s when the real fight begins,” she said. 

The next phase is likely to extend beyond the courtroom. Advocacy groups, parents, and youth organizations are expected to play a larger role in shaping policy and public perception. Marquez-Garrett pointed to what she described as a growing force behind that shift. “There is nothing more powerful than angry parents,” she said, describing a level of engagement and persistence that lawmakers are increasingly unable to ignore. 

Taken together, this case and the New Mexico verdict establish a powerful new precedent for product liability, with thousands of cases now poised to test social media’s impact on young people and civil society.