Scrolling 2 Death

So…I’ve sued another EdTech company. Here's a direct link to information on the lawsuit.

This time, it’s Curriculum Associates — the multi-billion-dollar maker of i-Ready, used by more than 14 million children in grades K–8, including my own.

In this episode, I break down why we’ve filed a lawsuit alleging that Curriculum Associates’ core business model depends on harvesting massive amounts of student data, monetizing it, and allegedly sharing children’s personal information with dozens of third parties for commercial purposes. We further allege the company builds deeply invasive psychological and behavioral profiles on students — profiles that can follow them and potentially harm them.

I never consented to this. And neither did millions of parents.

Sending our children to public school is a legal right. We should not have to expose them to commercial data trafficking just to get an education.

With the average school district using thousands of EdTech tools each year — and each child accessing dozens — the question isn’t whether this is happening. The question is whether parents ever gave meaningful, informed consent.

Joining me is Andy Liddell, attorney with the EdTech Law Center, to answer the questions flooding in from parents and teachers:
What exactly are we alleging?
What data is actually being collected?
Is academic growth tracking the same as data mining?
Can parents opt out?
Is this a class action?
What can teachers do?
And what do we say to critics who claim this is just fear-mongering?

If you’re a parent, teacher, or school leader, this conversation is one you cannot afford to miss.

If you’re interested in learning more or potentially joining an EdTech-related lawsuit, visit: edtech.law.

Because this isn’t just about i-Ready.

It’s about whether our children’s data belongs to them — or to corporations.

On March 25, 2026, after eight days of deliberation, the jury reached a verdict in the first bellwether trial against Meta and YouTube.

The verdict: The jury ruled in favor of Kaley on all counts. Scroll down to the bottom of this description for the full verdict.

This week, we take you inside the final, nerve-wracking days in the hallway and courtroom — the jury questions about expert testimony, deleted accounts, Instagram usage, punitive damages, and the moment they told the judge they were deadlocked with one defendant.

We walk through what each question meant, what it revealed about the jury’s thinking, and how both sides responded. You’ll hear what happened in real time as families waited, attorneys speculated, and the stakes became crystal clear.

We’re joined by Laura Marquez-Garrett of the Social Media Victims Law Center to break down:
What the verdict actually means
Whether an appeal is likely
Why early bellwether cases often shape — but don’t decide — the larger war
What happens next in the thousands of cases still moving forward

Because this was never just about one family.

It the most powerful tech companies in the world… versus families. And this verdict is the accelerator of justice.

The trials continue. Thousands of families. Dozens of states. School districts. The pressure is building. We’ll continue to be inside the courtroom translating it all for parents everywhere.

The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.

Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.

Are you willing to take action against Big Tech? Join us in D.C.! Fill out this form.

THE VERDICT

META
Was Meta negligent in the design or operation of Instagram? YES
Was Meta’s negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES
Did Meta know or should it reasonably have known that the design or operation of Instagram was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used by a minor in a reasonably foreseeable manner? YES‍
Did Meta know or should it reasonably have known that users would not realize the danger? YES
Did Meta fail to adequately warn of the danger? YES
Would a reasonable platform designer or operator under the same or similar circumstances have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of the platform? YES
Was Meta's failure to adequately warn or instruct a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES

YOUTUBE
Was YouTube negligent in the design or operation of YouTube? YES
Was YouTube's negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES
Did YouTube know or should it reasonably have known that the design or operation of YouTube was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used by a minor in a reasonably foreseeable manner? YES‍
Did YouTube know or should it reasonably have known that users would not realize the danger? YES
Did YouTube fail to adequately warn of the danger? YES
Would a reasonable platform designer or operator under the same or similar circumstances have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of the platform? YES
Was YouTube's failure to adequately warn or instruct a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES
‍
THE DAMAGES

A. What are KGM's damages? 
$3,000,000

B. What percentage of responsibility for K.G.M.’s harm do you assign to each of the following? 
70% Meta
30% YouTube

C. Do you find that K.G.M. proved by clear and convincing evidence that Meta acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in conduct upon which you base your finding of liability? YES

D. Do you find that K.G.M. proved by clear and convincing evidence that YouTube acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in conduct upon which you base your finding of liability? YES

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: $3,000,000 ($2.1M to Meta, $900K to YouTube)

This week on The Heat is On…Big Tech on Trial, we reached a turning point.

After weeks of testimony, we heard from the final witnesses — including Meta’s paid medical expert, internal researchers, and YouTube leadership. New details emerged about deleted watch history data, internal warnings about teen risk, and what company executives knew about under-13 enforcement.

Then came closing arguments.

Mark Lanier argued that platform design targeted Kaley from a young age. Attorneys for Meta and YouTube pushed back, claiming there is no proven causal link between social media and mental health struggles, for Kaley or anyone else.

Friday morning, the jury began deliberating.

Now nine jurors must decide:
Were these platforms negligently designed in ways that substantially contributed to Kaley’s anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts? Or not?

We’re inside the courtroom translating what this case means for parents everywhere — because these trials aren't just about one child. It could shape the future of accountability for TikTok, YouTube, Meta, and Snap Inc..

Verdict watch has begun.

The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.

Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.

This week inside the courtroom, science took center stage — and the stakes were higher than ever.

Dr. Kara Bagot, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who helped develop the NIH’s landmark ABCD brain study, spent five days on the stand. She testified that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Kaley developed social media addiction — and that YouTube acted as the “gateway,” beginning at just six years old. She walked the jury through the platform features that fuel compulsive use: infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithms, notifications, likes, filters, Shorts, Reels, and the lack of meaningful age verification.

Under intense cross-examination from Meta and YouTube’s attorneys, Dr. Bagot held her ground — insisting on context over yes-or-no soundbites. Jurors watched closely. When she was finally excused, there as a quiet applause.

Then came former Meta safety executive and whistleblower Arturo Bejar. He testified that by 2019, Meta researchers had identified addiction as a serious issue — but leadership discouraged even using the word, replacing it with “problematic use.” He described internal knowledge of harmful design choices, ineffective safety tools, and what he called “dark patterns,” including the infamous “blue button” that discouraged user reporting.

Arturo also testified that age verification is not technically difficult — and that Meta could remove millions of under-13 users if it chose to.

Next up was child safety expert and mom, Brooke Istook. Brooke powerfully described the generational tech gap, Instagram's growth team promoting FINSTAs, misleading safety promises, and the no-win position families face trying to supervise platforms designed to outmaneuver them.

By week’s end, the Plaintiffs rested their case and the Defense began calling witnesses in the form of video depositions.

Meanwhile, outside this courtroom, the pressure is mounting. Big tech lobbyists have infiltrated important online safety legislation and 33 new families across 19 states have joined the consolidated JCCP litigation, with Roblox newly added to the complaints.

Thousands of families. Dozens of states. And now jurors — everyday people — watching some of the richest companies in the world fight a single family over what caused a young girl’s harm.

These are the tobacco trials of our generation.

We’re inside the courtroom translating it all in real time — joined this week by Christine Almadjian, legislative consultant and courtroom observer, and Lennon Torres of Heat Initiative — bringing you the moments that mattered, the legal context behind the strategy, and what it means for families everywhere.

Because this fight isn’t abstract.
It’s about the apps in our kids’ pockets.
It’s about truth, justice and accountability.
And it’s about whether these companies will finally be forced to change.

We stand with families.

The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.

Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.

What really happens inside one of the most powerful companies in the world?

This week, we sit down with Brian Boland, a former senior leader at Facebook (pre-Meta), who spent more than a decade helping build and scale Facebook and Instagram's advertising systems — and later testified in court about what he saw.

Brian was in the courtroom for nearly five hours. In this candid conversation, he pulls back the curtain on:
What it feels like to testify under oath against your former company
How Meta’s internal culture shifted after whistleblowers like Frances Haugen spoke out
The reality of Mark Zuckerberg’s power inside the company — and why the board can’t remove him
How algorithms are built, tested, and optimized — and why even engineers don’t fully understand their long-term impacts
Whether Meta is truly incentivized to limit teen usage
The truth about ad revenue from minors
How accurate age-estimation technology really is — and why that matters
What whistleblowing actually costs the people who do it

Brian doesn’t call for the end of social media. In fact, he believes these platforms could be built to strengthen communities. But he’s clear: the current incentives — profit, growth, daily active users — drive decisions that put engagement above safety.

He also shares what he told executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, before he left — and the response he received.

If you’ve ever wondered:
Are these platforms intentionally habit-forming?
Do they really know how young users are?
Could they reduce harm if they wanted to?
Why don’t more insiders speak out?

This episode is essential listening.

It’s a rare, inside look at how power, profit, algorithms, and accountability collide — and what it might actually take to force change.

The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.

Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.

Research mentioned in the episode: Social media platforms generate billions of dollars in revenue from U.S. youth: Findings from a simulated revenue model (Raffoul article)