Insights & Events

Hollingsworth LLP partner Matthew Malinowski recently spoke with a reporter for the UCLA Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) regarding an influential bellwether case, K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, that attacked the companies’ platform designs, claiming the tech giants caused addiction in young users and harmed their mental health. Expert witnesses who specialized in psychiatry, neuroscience, pediatrics, and media played a pivotal role in the Los Angeles County Superior Court jury’s $6 million verdict that will influence the plaintiff and defense bars’ approach to future cases based on social media-related addictive design claims.

Malinowski said a big challenge for defendants is that well-chosen neuropsychological experts tend to bolster plaintiffs’ cases because the evidence they offer to explain an alleged victim’s state of mind is amorphous. For example, a psychological report is not as straightforward as an image of a physical injury tied to a fall. This requires defense attorneys to get deep into the science behind the psychological evidence and make it as simple as possible for the judge and jury to understand.

“It’s subjective,” Malinowski said. “And it’s hard to get right or wrong answers.” And that, he said, makes it hard to attack under the federal Daubert standard and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. That said, he expects that following the K.G.M. trial, adjustments will be made and there will be more verdicts in favor of the defense, pointing to changes made in the Roundup mass tort litigation, which began with major plaintiffs’ verdicts, then followed with a string of defense wins.

Judges have an affirmative duty to fairly screen expert evidence, and it is the defense lawyer’s job to hold them to it. In future cases, defense challenges could lead judges to further tailor expert testimony.

“Often in serial litigation, in first trials, the plaintiffs get a good hit because no one’s seen the playbook yet,” Malinowski said, adding that plaintiffs’ counsel tend to pick the strongest case for the first trials. He noted that what could move the needle now is the defense’s response.

“I don’t think anyone should expect the exact same rulings going forward, even in that same courtroom,” Malinowski said.

A version of this article previously appeared on the Continuing Education of the Bar website.^© The Regents of the University of California, 2026. Reprinted with permission. Click here to learn more about CEB’s legal research and CLE products and its commitment to serving the California legal community.