How Parents Won: The Case That Changed Social Media Liability

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.