Michael Wolkowicz on tech accountability and the law's role in driving change
First, it was tobacco. Then it was asbestos. Now, social media is “the biggest social issue of our time,” says Michael Wolkowicz, Partner and Head of Mass Torts at Neinstein LLP.
Wolkowicz is one of the lawyers taking on Meta, Snapchat, and TikTok on behalf of multiple Ontario school boards, and he believes the lawsuit is in good company.
“There’s a myriad of past examples where litigation like the one we’ve embarked on was the primary catalyst for change. That remains for us the key goal in all of this, and the goal of our clients.”
When old law meets new tech
Neinstein issued the claim against the tech giants in early 2024, alleging two overarching torts: negligence — including variations such as negligent product design — and public nuisance. The defendants in February 2025 sought to dismiss the claim on a Rule 21 motion, citing failure to disclose a viable cause of action, but Wolkowicz and his team were successful in resisting it at the Superior Court.
“The statistics, if true, and the methods and outcomes of social media on the learning environment reveal broad effects that impact not only the immediate access to the right to an education, but to the futures of many young people,” wrote Justice Janet Leiper, in her March 2025 decision. “It is arguable that an addictive product that interferes with the mental health and educational aspirations of students is a public nuisance that requires a remedy.”
The next hurdle is a three-judge panel at the Divisional Court at the end of October, where the appeal will be heard over two days. While currently much of Wolkowicz’s focus is on preparing for that, he’s also monitoring related developments in the U.S.
There have been several cases south of the border taking on the tech heavyweights, including the Breathitt County school board in Kentucky, which received a $27 million settlement on the doorstep of trial. Another case, KGM, was the first personal injury trial in the space. The plaintiff was successful on a jury decision against both Meta and YouTube, receiving $6 million, with Snap and TikTok settling before trial. In another example, the attorney general of New Mexico took on Meta on a public nuisance claim, resulting in damages of $567 million.
“Essentially what they said is, here are the estimated costs associated with remediating the public harms that have been created by these products,” Wolkowicz says. “That forms a really interesting basis for how a case like our own would be looked at and potentially what a determination on the issue of public nuisance could read like in a case here.”
Similarly, and most recently, Meta settled with 29 state AGs in the multi-district litigation based out of California federal court for approximately $17 billion. That settlement included injunctive relief: agreed design changes requiring better age verification, notifications turned off between midnight and 6 a.m. and during school hours, and restrictions on content promoting self-harm and cyberbullying.
Wolkowicz considers those changes meaningful but is cautious about how they will be implemented. Meta’s subsequent announcement that those safeguards would not apply in Canada, however, he describes as shocking — and underscores the importance of forcing those modifications here at home.
“I caution anybody against reading too much into the tea leaves on what happens in the U.S., but the important takeaway is there is a path forward on proving these cases, and one which judges and juries have accepted,” Wolkowicz says. “But the fight obviously goes on here. It becomes even more important for us to move these actions forward and to continue to shine a light on this issue.”
The biggest challenge, in some ways, is the common law itself. It’s 200 years old in some cases: none of it was created in contemplation of the advent of a platform like Facebook.
“Applying existing legal doctrine in claims involving tech accountability is a big question that we as a society, and we as lawyers, need to grapple with,” Wolkowicz says. “What we’ve tried to do — and successfully to this point in our litigation — is adapt old tools to new problems. We say the law allows for that type of incremental development, and we hope that is the trajectory going forward.”
Not just lawsuits and litigation
The social media case isn’t Neinstein’s first foray into novel litigation; the firm previously ran a mass tort against JUUL Labs over its vaping products and their impact on youth, which Wolkowicz spearheaded. The firm takes up these causes because, as he sees it, being a lawyer is itself a position of privilege — one that comes with an obligation to use it well. The social media litigation won’t impact one person or group of people; it stands to make a meaningful difference for children across the province.
“That fits with our firm’s ethos and mentality across all practice areas: our objective is to help,” Wolkowicz says. “We’re parents. These issues affect us like they do everybody else. We’re trying to use our platform for good.”
But it’s not all lawsuits and litigation, he adds. Everyone, from parents and schools to public health and governments, has a responsibility here. There’s some movement on this front, including the federal government’s recently introduced Safe Social Media Act and schools, operating at the forefront of children’s physical and mental health, continuing to step up as well. Critically, the companies themselves must change how their products operate.
“We welcome change at all levels; this is a problem that requires multifaceted solutions,” Wolkowicz says. “In some ways, we already feel successful because we’ve helped shine a light on this: the public discourse has changed so significantly since 2023, when we started looking at this problem. It illustrates there’s a role for the law to play in societal change and it’s an important one. We feel privileged to be part of that.”
This article was produced in partnership with Neinstein LLP
