A California appeals court on Thursday, November 5, upheld the dismissal of lawsuits by four school districts that blamed Meta, Snap, TikTok and Google’s YouTube for a youth mental health crisis in their schools. The ruling leaves the districts without their negligence and public nuisance claims in California state court, but it does not affect the claims families are bringing for harm to their own children.
The court said so directly. The companies “may still face individual personal injury lawsuits from their users,” the opinion states, along with actions by government authorities.
What the Appeals Court Decided
The four districts were San Diego Unified School District in California, the School Board of Brevard County in Florida, Vancouver School District in Washington and West Warwick Public Schools in Rhode Island. Their complaints were chosen for the first round of legal challenges to the school district claims in the Los Angeles social media proceeding, which is overseen by Judge Carolyn Kuhl. Judge Kuhl dismissed the claims in June 2024, and the districts appealed.
A three-judge panel of the Second Appellate District, in a published opinion written by Justice Anne K. Richardson, affirmed that ruling. The districts sought money for the extra counselors, staff time, training and other costs they say they took on because students were struggling with social media addiction. The court held that those costs are financial losses, not physical injury or property damage. Under California law, a rule that generally bars negligence claims for purely financial losses defeated San Diego’s claim, and under Florida and Rhode Island law the companies owed the districts no duty to avoid those losses. The public nuisance claims failed for reasons specific to each state’s law, and the Rhode Island district dropped its nuisance claim.
“We acknowledge the serious allegations of mental health harms experienced by many students,” the court wrote. It said it was bound to follow existing precedents, and that the Legislature can craft a solution if it chooses. The court held that Section 230, a federal law that protects online platforms from liability for what users post, shields the companies from claims for vandalism damage tied to “challenge” videos. It did not decide whether Section 230 or the First Amendment bars the districts’ other claims.
School Districts Fared Better in Federal Court
The ruling applies only in California’s state courts. In the federal social media litigation in Oakland, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers allowed school districts’ negligence claims to go forward in October 2024. The California appeals court called the federal court’s analysis of the financial loss rule “truncated” and declined to follow it.
In May 2026, Meta, Snap, TikTok and YouTube settled the first federal school district test case, brought by Breathitt County Schools in Kentucky, for about $27 million before it reached trial, Reuters reported. The next federal school district trial is expected in early 2027.
What This Means for Families
Families’ claims rest on a different footing. A school district says it lost money responding to students’ problems. A young person who became addicted and developed depression, anxiety, an eating disorder or another diagnosed condition claims a personal injury, the kind of harm negligence law is built to address.
Those individual claims are moving forward in the same Los Angeles proceeding. In March 2026, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in the first trial and awarded a young woman $6 million. In the second trial, Meta and Snap each settled with the two teens before a jury could decide their claims, and the next trial is set for March 2027. See our settlements and verdicts page.
Money a school district recovers goes to the district, just as money from state attorney general cases goes to the states. Families seeking compensation for a child’s harm need to bring their own claims, and those claims have filing deadlines.
Who May Have a Claim
Families in every state may have a claim. Two things matter most: the young person started using Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat or YouTube heavily before age 18 and is now 25 or younger, and a doctor, therapist or counselor diagnosed or treated depression or severe anxiety, an eating disorder or body dysmorphia, or self-harm, suicidal thoughts or a suicide attempt. Families who lost a child may also have a claim. Read more about who may qualify.
Doyle APC handles social media addiction claims together with experienced co-counsel.
If you or your child is in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.
Common Questions
Does the school district ruling affect my family’s claim?
No. The ruling dealt only with school districts’ claims for their own costs. The court noted that the companies may still face personal injury lawsuits from their users, and families’ claims continue in Los Angeles and in federal court.
Why did the school districts lose?
The court found that the districts’ costs, such as hiring counselors and training staff, were financial losses rather than physical injury or property damage, and that the companies owed the districts no duty to avoid those losses under the state laws involved. Their public nuisance claims also failed or were dropped.
Are school districts still suing in federal court?
Yes. In the federal litigation in Oakland, school districts’ negligence claims were allowed to proceed in 2024. The first federal school district test case settled in May 2026, and another school district trial is expected in early 2027.
Will a school district settlement pay my family?
No. Money a school district recovers goes to the district. Families who want compensation for a child’s harm need to file their own claims.
What compensation can a family seek?
Claims seek medical and counseling expenses, past and future, along with compensation for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. You pay nothing unless we recover.