Platform Design on Trial: Evidence-backed Frameworks for Discovery and Remedy
Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against online platform companies alleging harms related to social media, artificial intelligence, and gaming products. Together with the Tech Justice Law Project and the USC Neely Center, KGI is building a network of collaborators developing practical resources for use by litigators as they shape their approaches to discovery and remedy. Our Litigating Platform Design initiative bridges the gap between litigators, technology researchers, and legal scholars – equipping their joint efforts towards tech accountability.
Litigation has become a key avenue for platform accountability in the United States. Private plaintiffs and a diverse coalition of state attorneys general have filed hundreds of cases on behalf of consumers, children, and communities. Their claims span a range of harms arising from the design of social media, AI chatbots, and gaming products. These cases invoke multiple legal theories, including consumer protection, unjust enrichment, and product liability, to attempt to make platforms more answerable for their design decisions.
Digital platforms have responded with a wide-ranging defense, raising a variety of challenges to these claims based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment of the Constitution, among others. However, lawsuits are increasingly surviving the platform’s defenses at the motion to dismiss phase of litigation and entering uncharted territory as they advance to discovery and remedy phases. Indeed, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Snap’s Evan Spiegel, and Instagram’s Adam Mosseri are all expected to be required to testify at trial beginning in January 2026.
As cases enter new phases, key questions remain: What should be included in discovery demands? How can judgments and settlements be crafted to ensure that harms are fully understood, effectively mitigated, and ultimately eliminated.
Parties to these cases and the broader policy community need evidence-backed strategies to effectively approach these questions. To strengthen this evidence base, there is a growing need to expand collaboration between state attorneys general, private litigators, technology researchers, and legal scholars.
The Knight-Georgetown Institute (KGI), Tech Justice Law Project (TJLP), and the USC Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making (USC Neely Center) are collaborating on an initiative to strengthen the effectiveness of litigation as a tool to hold online platforms accountable for their design choices. As part of this effort, we have developed several draft resources to inform platform accountability strategies:
- Discovery analysis: this working draft considers lessons from discovery in platform litigation. Relying on docket analysis and interviews, the document identifies common challenges, opportunities, and priorities for discussion.
- Remedy framework: this working draft explores legal remedies across governance, harm prevention, and harm mitigation. Informed by our analysis of nearly 100 remedies across sectors, the framework identifies potential remedies for incorporation into platform litigation.
We are soliciting broad-based expert input to refine these resources before final publication. In the coming months, we will seek direct input from expert communities, including litigators, researchers, and technologists. We also welcome your feedback, which can be sent to the KGI, TJLP, and USC Neely Center teams at litigatingdesign@georgetown.edu. We will publish final versions of these resources in 2026.