Skip to main content

Breakfast with Matthew Bergman

A legal victory against Big Tech: meet the lawyer behind the scenes

On the backdrop of ‘Growing up in the online world’, the UK Government’s National Consultation on children and digital spaces, the Digital Futures for Children centre (DFC) welcomed Matthew Bergman. Bergman is a US-based lawyer and founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center, which in March 2026 secured a landmark win in a Californian court against Meta and YouTube - achieving a $6 million payout.

The Social Media Victims Law centre represented a 20-year-old woman (KGM) in California, presenting a case against Meta and YouTube for creating addictive products that led her to being harmed. There are over 1600 similar cases in California which they have grouped together as JCCP 5255. This was the first of the bellwether cases to go to trial out of that group, and the first ever successful win against a social media company over addiction.

US Communications Decency Act: Section 230

“Section 230” is undoubtedly the biggest protection that Big Tech companies have in legal cases like KGM’s. Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act states that service providers and users may not "be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". In other words, providers are not responsible for what a user does on their platform. Just as a postal service cannot be held accountable for hate mail contained inside a parcel, a social media company cannot be prosecuted for the content it hosts. This content is inclusive of child sex trafficking, drug dealing, terrorism and suicide ideation.

Section 230 waives any responsibility the platform has over having (or not taking down) problematic, distressing or even criminal content – providing immunity, or a ‘legal shield’ to Big Tech companies. What makes Bergman, and the work of the Social Media Victims Law Center special, is that they are the first in the history of social media lawsuits to circumvent Section 230, and win.

Context to Matthew Bergman

Before his days bringing litigation against Big Tech companies, Bergman represented over 850 victims of mesothelioma in asbestos cases, as a product liability lawyer. His career path differs to many lawyers in this space, where publishing or criminal law backgrounds may be more expected.

Bergman’s public liability casework over the last 30 years builds on the principle that companies must provide a reasonable duty of care to their consumers: “Not perfect care, not unflawed care, but a level of ‘reasonable’ care”. In asbestos cases, Bergman would aim to prove that companies were negligent in their provision of equipment, for example, or their avoidance of stating how dangerous their products could be.

In 2021, Bergman realised that he could draw the same learning from his asbestos case history and apply it to social media, or “pour new wine into old bottles”, providing the following analogous relationship:

  • Popular: sizeable use of asbestos and social media across many facets of society.
  • Causes injury: both asbestos and social media can cause harm.
  • Public health: this harm isn’t limited to a few people but many.
  • Righteous clients: from his working clients in asbestos cases to the children he represents now, his clients are viewed as innocent, or ‘righteous’.

Leapfrogging Section 230: the design, not the content

Bergman argued that, aside from any content, the design of the platform caused KGM harm. The Social Media Victims Law Center, Meta and YouTube built their platforms to be addictive, without extending a reasonable duty of care. Instead, they exist solely to meet the platform’s own goals of maximising engagement.

Court papers showed that Meta aimed to engage pre-teen children and be ‘addictive’ to meet their goal of 1 billion streamed hours per day.

Brain scans from Meta showed that they investigated adolescent brains, determining how to maximise hours watched on their platforms.

Moreover, Meta and YouTube were self-aware of the harm that these goals and designs were causing, with one rather damning quote from a Meta employee: “Oh my gosh, y’all, IG is a drug”.

The court accepted that:

  • The client had suffered emotional damage from the addictive nature of social media’s design,
  • Meta and YouTube knew the harm they were creating and
  • Meta and YouTube continued to make their product more addictive, despite this knowledge.

And with that, the centre secured a landmark win.

The path forward

Bergman quoted Winston Churchhill: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”. This trial is the first of the bellwether trials representing 1600+ cases: this is only the first win, and Meta will likely appeal this decision.

Ultimately, social media’s economic model is extremely profitable. Bergman argued that evoking change requires hitting companies back within that same economic model -- hurting their brand (through communications), their 'wallets' (through economic consequences) and their business model (reducing hours watched). In the questions following his presentation, Bergman highlighted the importance of a firm, holistic approach, combining socio-legal, communications and policy sectors.

DFC reflections

Matthew Bergman’s passion for children’s wellbeing in digital environments was tangible throughout his presentation. Invited DFC guests then engaged in an important, nuanced discussion: acknowledging the fractured nature of internet addiction research, whilst also highlighting the importance of continual, dynamic and child-rights-respecting research.

Bergman’s example demonstrates that litigation has driven powerful, systemic change in the US. We hope that this creates ripple effects in children’s rights advocacy around the world.

Find out more about the DFC's events.

Event report by Marisa Lyons Longworth.