California Appeals Court Dismisses School Districts' Social Media Liability Claims

California court dismissed school districts' negligence and nuisance claims against major social media platforms.

On November 5, 2026, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District ruled against four school districts pursuing negligence and public nuisance claims against major social media companies. The plaintiffs included San Diego Unified School District (California), the School Board of Brevard County (Florida), Vancouver School District No. 37 (Washington), and West Warwick Public Schools (Rhode Island).

The school districts alleged that platforms owned by Meta, YouTube, Snap, and TikTok were designed to be addictive and directly contributed to a mental health crisis among students. They claimed this increased school operational costs and caused property damage.

Justice Anne K. Richardson, author of the opinion, acknowledged the gravity of the plaintiffs’ concerns but emphasized adherence to legal precedent. She stated, "We acknowledge the serious allegations of mental health harms experienced by many students and the impact of those harms on Plaintiffs’ schools and student bodies. However, we must affirm the dismissal because it follows existing precedents which we too are bound to follow."

The court dismissed the negligence claims primarily because the school districts sought recovery only for economic losses without accompanying physical injury or property damage. This invoked the economic loss rule, barring such claims.

The defendants were also protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liability for content created by third parties—a key factor since property damage claims related to third-party videos (such as challenge videos) were included.

Regarding public nuisance claims, the court ruled they failed because the districts did not sufficiently allege that the harm affected an entire community’s health equally. Additionally, San Diego lacked standing as a government entity without proof of direct injury to its property.

This decision clarifies the limits of holding social media platforms liable for indirect harms like student mental health issues and related school expenses. It sets a precedent that could influence how future litigation and legal strategies unfold for public entities suing tech companies.