Social-Media Companies Lose Two Big Court Cases; a List of Local No Kings Rallies–Coachella Valley Independent’s Indy Digest: March 26, 2026

Indy Digest: March 26, 2026

Two juries came to similar conclusions this week: Social-media platforms can be dangerous and addictive, especially for children—and these social-media companies prioritize profit over safety.

The first case was decided in New Mexico, after a seven-week trial. The Associated Press reports:

A New Mexico jury determined Tuesday that Meta knowingly harmed children’s mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its social media platforms, a verdict that signals a changing tide against tech companies and the government’s willingness to crack down. …

New Mexico jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta — which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp—prioritized profits over safety, and violated parts of the state’s Unfair Practices Act.

The jury agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and also agreed that Meta engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities of and inexperience of children. …

Jurors found there were thousands of violations, each counting separately toward a penalty of $375 million. That’s less than one-fifth of what prosecutors were seeking.

The second case was decided on Wednesday, as NBC News explains:

A jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in the design or operation of their social media platforms, producing a bellwether verdict in the first lawsuit to take tech giants to trial for social media addiction.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court jury said that Meta’s and YouTube’s negligence were a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff, identified in court by her initials, K.G.M., and that the companies failed to adequately warn users of the dangers of Instagram (Meta’s platform) and YouTube (which is owned by Google).

It awarded K.G.M. $3 million in compensatory damages, finding Meta 70% responsible for harm caused to the now 20-year-old plaintiff, and YouTube responsible for 30%.

The trial, which began last month in a Los Angeles County courtroom and included testimony from Mark Zuckerberg and other tech executives, was the first in a consolidated group of cases brought against Meta and other companies by more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including over 350 families and over 250 school districts. …

The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the incidents outlined in her lawsuit. K.G.M. testified in court that her nearly nonstop use of social media caused or contributed to depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia. It “really affected my self-worth,” she said last month.

Speaking about her social media use, K.G.M. testified that she felt she wanted to constantly be on the platforms and feared missing out if she wasn’t.

In both cases, the social-media companies have said they plan to appeal.

It’s worth noting that in both cases, the amount of money being discussed here is mere pocket change to massive companies like Google and Meta. As the aforementioned AP piece says: “Meta is valued at about $1.5 trillion and the company’s stock was up 5% in early after-hours trading following the verdict, a signal that shareholders were shrugging off the news.”

So … will these cases actually cause social-media platforms to change their ways? The answer is … uh, maybe?

The New York Times explained how these cases are different from previous lawsuits against Facebook and the like—and that there are a LOT more cases in the pipeline:

The verdict in K.G.M.’s case — one of thousands of lawsuits filed by teenagers, school districts and state attorneys general against Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap, which owns Snapchat — was a major win for the plaintiffs. The finding validates a novel legal theory that social media sites or apps can cause personal injury. It is likely to factor into similar cases expected to go to trial this year, which could expose the internet giants to further financial damages and force changes to their products.

The personal liability argument draws inspiration from a legal playbook used against Big Tobacco last century, in which lawyers argued that the companies created addictive products that harmed users. The companies have largely dodged legal threats by citing a federal shield, called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects them from liability for what their users post. …

The cases have been compared to those against Big Tobacco last century, when Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds were accused of hiding information about the harms of cigarettes. The companies reached a $206 billion master settlement with more than 40 states in 1998 that led to an agreement to stop marketing to minors. Strict tobacco regulations and a decline in smoking followed.

Though the California Superior Court of Los Angeles County verdict is an initial victory against tech giants, legal experts said it was unclear if the decision would represent a similar turning point. Eight other cases brought by individual plaintiffs are slated to go to trial there. A set of federal cases brought by states and school districts in Oakland, Calif., at the U.S. District Court of Northern California, are scheduled for jury trials this summer.

“There is a long road ahead, but this decision is quite significant,” said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank, and expert on media law. “If there are a series of verdicts for plaintiffs, it will force the defendants to reconsider how they design social media platforms and how they deliver content to minors.”

There’s no question that social-media platforms can be harmful, especially to children. Here’s hoping that these cases, and the cases that follow, force these trillion-dollar companies to finally take steps to make their platforms safer and less-addictive.

No Kings Protests

A lot of locals will be joining millions of others across the United States and beyond this Saturday, March 28, to protest the authoritarian efforts of the Trump administration at No Kings protests.

Here are the local No Kings protests:

• Palm Springs: 9 to 10 a.m. at Palm Canyon Drive and Sunrise Way

• Palm Desert: 9 to 10:30 a.m. at Monterey Avenue and Highway 111

• Palm Springs: 10 a.m. to noon at Palm Springs City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way

• Indio: 10 a.m. to noon at Monroe Street and Highway 111

• Joshua Tree: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Highway 62 and Park Boulevard

• Idyllwild-Pine Cove: Idyllwild Art Department, 54240 Pine Crest Ave., Unit A

If you go to any of these, be careful; be civil—and raise hell.

—Jimmy Boegle

More News

• Coachella Mayor Steven Hernandez has essentially resigned after pleading guilty to a felony charge. KESQ News Channel 3 says: “Coachella Mayor Steven Hernandez pleaded guilty to one felony count of conflict of interest Tuesday morning at the Larson Justice Center in Indio. Hernandez was sentenced to two years of probation, one day in custody with credit for time served, and 200 hours of community service, along with fines and fees. The remaining eight counts were dismissed. … According to the District Attorney’s office, under California law, a conviction for violating Government Code section 1090 carries a lifetime prohibition from holding public office in the state. As a result of this conviction, Hernandez is permanently disqualified from serving in any public office in California. The conviction stems from Hernandez’s involvement in votes and actions related to a contract between the City of Coachella and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments’ Housing First Program.”

• The epic Dumpster fire that is the California governor’s race, at least on the Democrats’ side, got even hotter this week after the last-minute cancellation of a debate at USC. The Los Angeles Times reports: “USC canceled its planned Tuesday gubernatorial debate, a stunning about-face that came after days of fiery criticism about excluding every prominent candidate of color from participating. Although the university defended the methodology used to determine who was invited to participate in the forum, it called off the event less than 24 hours before it was to take place. In a statement late Monday night, the university said it recognized concerns about the selection criteria had ‘created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters.’ The university said it discussed potentially expanding the field with debate co-sponsor KABC-TV Los Angeles but was unable to reach an agreement. … Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee—all Democrats—had been excluded from the debate field.”

• The Trump administration’s hostility toward renewable energy sources keeps getting more ridiculous—and costly to taxpayers. CNBC reports: “The White House has agreed to pay TotalEnergies $1 billion to shelve East Coast wind farm projects that it condemned as ‘costly,’ with the French energy giant’s investment set to be diverted into U.S. (liquefied natural gas) production instead. The U.S.′ Department of the Interior (DOI) announced on Monday what it said was ‘a landmark agreement’ with TotalEnergies for the company ‘to redirect capital from expensive, unreliable offshore wind leases toward affordable, reliable natural gas projects that will provide secure energy for hardworking Americans.’ TotalEnergies has committed to invest approximately $1 billion—the value of its renounced offshore wind leases—in oil and natural gas and LNG production in the U.S., the DOI said in a statement. Following the new investment, the department said the U.S. will reimburse the company dollar-for-dollar, up to the amount they paid in lease purchases for offshore wind. The agreement will see TotalEnergies shelve its offshore wind developments in New York and Carolina. It will invest instead in the development of four trains at the Rio Grande LNG plant in Texas, as well as upstream conventional oil in the U.S. Gulf and shale gas production. U.S. President Donald Trump has made no secret of his loathing for offshore wind developments, frequently lambasting such projects as expensive and ugly.”

• The president says he’ll sign an executive order to pay Transportation and Security Administration agents. The Associated Press says: “President Donald Trump said Thursday he would sign an order instructing the Homeland Security secretary to immediately pay Transportation Security Administration agents as Congress struggles to reach a deal to end the budget impasse that has jammed airports and left workers without paychecks. … With pressure mounting, the White House had floated the extraordinary move of invoking a national emergency to pay TSA workers while senators reviewed a ‘last and final’ offer from Republicans to Democrats to end the funding impasse. Details of the president’s plan were not immediately available, but a national emergency declaration would be politically fraught and almost certain to face legal challenges. Instead, the president may simply be shifting money from other sources. … Multiple airports are experiencing greater than 40% callout rates of TSA workers and nearly 500 of its nearly 50,000 transportation security officers have now quit during the shutdown. Nationwide on Wednesday, more than 11% of the TSA employees on the schedule missed work, according to DHS. That is more than 3,120 callouts.”

• Related: The president’s move to deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to airports has not gone well. It hasn’t decreased the length of TSA screening lines—and it ticked off the TSA agents’ union. The New York Times reports: “Leaders of a union representing Transportation Safety Administration workers blasted the Trump administration’s deployment of immigration enforcement agents to airports, which the government claims will help alleviate long security lines but the union calls a pointless distraction. ‘No way ICE can guarantee safety of the passengers,’ Hydrick Thomas, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees TSA Council 100 union, told reporters at a news conference, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ‘All ICE is doing is just getting in the way.’ … At many airports, missed paychecks have led to increased absences among TSA workers, as they seek other sources of income. Those absences, in turn, have led to long security lines. But ICE has not been much help, union leaders said. ‘The administration sent ICE agents to airports as replacement workers. That’s like giving a person dying of pneumonia a teaspoon of cough syrup,’ said Everett Kelley, the national president of AFGE. ‘It doesn’t address the problem, and it’s not going to work.’”

• Today’s recall news involves … another batch of grill brushes! Today.com says: “Warmer weather is great for grilling, but take a moment to check your grill brushes first. More than 10 million wire grill brushes sold at Home Depot were just recalled because they may pose serious health risks. Nexgrill is voluntarily recalling 10.2 million grill brushes of various models because the bristles may break off and stick to food or the grill, according to a recall alert from the U.S. Consumer Protection and Safety Commission. That means the bristles can be unintentionally eaten and then get lodged in a consumer’s throat or intestines. To date, the CPSC has received five reports of people seeking medical care for that exact issue.” Eek!

• And finally … the federal government has banned new household internet routers made outside of the United States? Why? Wired magazine explains: “‘Malicious actors have exploited security gaps in foreign-made routers to attack American households, disrupt networks, enable espionage, and facilitate intellectual property theft,’ the FCC wrote. ‘Foreign-made routers were also involved in the Volt, Flax, and Salt Typhoon cyberattacks targeting vital US infrastructure.’ Foreign-made consumer routers were added to the Covered List, which details equipment and services ‘deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.’ Bogdan Botezatu, director of Threat Research at cybersecurity firm Bitdefender, says this ban is a step to harden the cybersecurity readiness of US households, given ongoing geopolitical tensions. ‘Consumer routers sit at the edge of every home network, which makes them an attractive target and a strategic risk if compromised at scale,’ he says. Asked whether he thinks the risk is real, Botezatu says yes, though there’s no easy way to prove intent. ‘[Internet of Things] devices, including routers, are a weak point across the internet.’”

Support the Independent!

The Independent has been publishing for more than 13 years, and we have always offered all of our news to anyone who wants it for free. But in 2026, costs are up, and a lot of people are downright hostile to the news media—especially the news sources that base their reporting in facts and the truth. Please, if you can afford to do so, consider helping us out by clicking the button below and becoming a Supporter of the Independent. We can even take tax-deductible donations through our fiscal sponsor! Thanks, as always, for reading.