Insights & Events

Litigation Daily published an article by Hollingsworth LLP attorneys Matt Malinowski, Joe Cianciola, and Kelly Hutchinson examining the application of amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702 in the Social Media Adolescent Addiction MDL (“Social Media MDL”). The article explains that, despite the 2023 amendments reinforcing trial courts’ gatekeeping responsibilities, some courts continue to treat threshold reliability questions as matters for the jury rather than admissibility.

The article also analyzes the Social Media MDL defendants’ challenge to plaintiffs’ general causation experts’ opinions that social media platforms and their design features cause a range of purported mental health and related harms. It discusses the defendants’ arguments that the experts relied on generalized social media research, over-extrapolated from scientific literature, failed to account for alternative explanations, and did not reliably connect their opinions to specific product design features or alleged harms. The authors contend that the court’s decision to admit much of that testimony reflects the type of Rule 702 misapplication the Advisory Committee sought to address through the 2023 amendments.

Finally, the authors examine the contrasts between the Rule 702 decisions in the Social Media MDL with other recent Rule 702 decisions in Williams v. Sig Sauer and the Valsartan MDL, where courts excluded expert testimony after closely scrutinizing whether the experts reliably applied their methodologies to the specific causation opinions offered. The authors conclude with practical guidance for defense counsel on identifying Rule 702 issues early in litigation and focusing courts on whether expert testimony reliably bridges the gap between scientific literature and the particular causation theory plaintiffs advance.