Meta and Snap Seek State Standards for Injury Claims
The companies are pushing to apply specific state laws to govern negligence claims in the upcoming social media addiction trial.
Updated on Oct. 21, 2026 in Internet
Live Poll
Should social media companies be held liable for psychological injuries under specific state laws?
Meta Platforms Inc. and Snap Inc. have filed briefs in a Los Angeles court seeking to apply specific Mississippi and Illinois legal standards to ongoing social media addiction claims. The companies argue these state laws should govern negligence allegations brought by individual plaintiffs K.D.B. and S.J.
Why it matters
Determining which state laws apply is a critical procedural step that dictates the burden of proof required for psychological injury claims against social media platforms. This dispute over jurisdictional standards impacts how negligence and causation are assessed in the pending litigation.
The legal briefs filed in Los Angeles specify that Mississippi law should apply to negligence claims for plaintiff K.D.B., while Illinois law should govern those of plaintiff S.J. These filings rely on state-specific legal precedents regarding the thresholds for proving psychological injury and causation.
The players
Meta Platforms Inc.
A global technology company that manages a stack of social networking platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, currently facing widespread litigation regarding platform design.
Snap Inc.
The developer of the Snapchat visual messaging application, which is currently a primary defendant in lawsuits involving social media addiction and youth safety.
The details
The dispute centers on choice-of-law principles, which determine which state's legal framework applies when plaintiffs and defendants are based in different jurisdictions. Meta and Snap are pushing to constrain the scope of liability by adhering to the standards of Mississippi and Illinois, respectively, which address how platforms are held responsible for alleged psychological harms. Plaintiffs maintain that these interpretations of applicable negligence statutes are flawed.
Timeline
October 19, 2026: Meta and Snap filed legal briefs in Los Angeles.
The Tech Race
This filing is a tactical maneuver within the ongoing multidistrict litigation regarding social media addiction, where defendants seek to narrow the scope of their legal exposure. The case follows a long-standing pattern in mass-tort litigation where the determination of jurisdiction significantly alters the trajectory of corporate liability.
The outcome of this jurisdictional dispute will determine how negligence claims for social media addiction are evaluated for the named plaintiffs. It sets a procedural precedent that could influence how future claims from different states are handled in the ongoing litigation.
The takeaway
The court's decision on these filings will clarify the evidentiary threshold plaintiffs must meet to sustain their negligence claims. Observers should monitor the court's forthcoming order on the governing law, which will dictate the standard of evidence for causation in this specific trial.
Further reading
For more on the broader regulatory and legal challenges facing digital platforms, visit the Internet section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Dailyjournal.
Live Poll
Should social media companies be held liable for psychological injuries under specific state laws?
