Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Platform Harm, Addictive Design, and Accountability

Section 504, ADA Title III, and the Architecture of Addictive Design

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Legal research article.

Written
April 17, 2026
Version
v7
Pages
61
Download PDFPlain language slides (PDF)Export BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

In forty-eight hours on March 24 and 25, 2026, two juries returned verdicts against the ma- jor social media platforms on records establishing that addictive design was intentional, that internal research confirmed disproportionate harm to vulnerable minors, and that remediation was technically feasible but withheld. A Santa Fe jury assessed approximately $375 million in civil penalties against Meta in New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, Inc.; a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google liable for negligent design in KGM v. Meta & YouTube. This Arti- cle argues that those records, though tried under negligence and consumer protection theories, establish the elements of federal civil rights claims that are categorically stronger and system- ically more consequential. Two statutory frameworks reach the conduct in parallel. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act reaches the purpose-built education and health care verticals of Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple, and Amazon; ADA Title III, which requires no recipient status, reaches the general consumer platforms under Robles v. Domino’s Pizza. Neither framework requires proof of discriminatory intent: Alexander v. Choate holds that Section 504 reaches thoughtlessness and indifference as well as animus, and the platforms’ empty design record, containing no documented consideration of accessibility, disparate impact, or alternatives, is affirmative evidence of that standard rather than a defense. The Article maps recipient status under the four pathways of 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(3), the correspondence between specific addic- tive design mechanisms and protected disability classes, the inaccessible consent gate as an

Keywords

  • Section 504, Rehabilitation Act
  • ADA Title III
  • disability civil rights
  • disparate impact
  • addictive design
  • platform accountability
  • public accommodations
  • Alexander v. Choate
  • Robles v. Domino's Pizza
  • methods of administration
  • injunctive class actions
  • protected disability classes

Plain language slides

First slide of the plain language summary of Section 504, ADA Title III, and the Architecture of Addictive DesignOpen the 19-slide summary (PDF)

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "Section 504, ADA Title III, and the Architecture of Addictive Design." Real Safety AI Foundation Legal Research Article, April 17, 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/nuac2d/

Other versions

This paper is also posted on SSRN.

SSRN version

References (98)

This paper cites its sources in footnotes. Each authority is listed once, where it is first cited, with its footnote number.

  1. Footnote 1.In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3047 (N.D. Cal.)
  2. Footnote 2.New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. D-101-CV-2023-02838 (N.M. 1st Jud. Dist. Ct.) (jury verdict March 24, 2026, assessing $375 million in civil penalties; second phase bench trial on public nuisance and injunctive relief commencing May 4, 2026)
  3. Footnote 3.Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 122 (2019).
  4. Footnote 4.KGM v. Meta Platforms, Inc. & YouTube LLC, JCCP 5255, bellwether trial (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. County, verdict Mar. 25, 2026).
  5. Footnote 5.Plaintiff’s trial brief, KGM v. Meta & YouTube, at 3-7 (on file with court).
  6. Footnote 6.Verdict sheet, KGM v. Meta & YouTube (Mar. 25, 2026).
  7. Footnote 7.Status report, JCCP 5255 (Jan. 2026).
  8. Footnote 8.Project Myst exhibit, admitted into evidence, KGM v. Meta & YouTube. See also coverage in CBS News, NPR, Al Jazeera, summarizing trial testimony.
  9. Footnote 13.Trial testimony, KGM v. Meta & YouTube, Feb.-Mar. 2026.
  10. Footnote 15.Opening statement of Luis Li, counsel for YouTube/Google, KGM v. Meta & YouTube (Feb. 2026), as reported by Associated Press and Los Angeles Times.
  11. Footnote 16.Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979).
  12. Footnote 17.29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
  13. Footnote 18.45 C.F.R. Part 84 (HHS)
  14. Footnote 18.34 C.F.R. Part 104 (Education)
  15. Footnote 18.28 C.F.R. Part 41 (DOJ coordination regulations)
  16. Footnote 18.49 C.F.R. Part 27 (DOT)
  17. Footnote 18.24 C.F.R. Part 8 (HUD).
  18. Footnote 19.89 Fed. Reg. 40180 (May 9, 2024), effective July 8, 2024.
  19. Footnote 20.45 C.F.R. § 84.10.
  20. Footnote 21.Grove City Coll. v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984).
  21. Footnote 22.Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28
  22. Footnote 23.29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(3).
  23. Footnote 24.31 U.S.C. §§ 6301-6308.
  24. Footnote 25.31 U.S.C. § 6303.
  25. Footnote 26.Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-101, 128 Stat. 1146.
  26. Footnote 34.Rojas v. TK Commc’ns, Inc., 87 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 1996)
  27. Footnote 34.EEOC v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc., 503 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir. 1974).
  28. Footnote 35.Cobb v. Contract Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2006)
  29. Footnote 35.Steinbach v. Hubbard, 51 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 1995) (FLSA context).
  30. Footnote 36.Doe v. Salvation Army, 531 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2008).
  31. Footnote 37.Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 607 U.S. ___ (2026).
  32. Footnote 40.Microsoft Corporation, “Microsoft completes acquisition of Nuance, ushering in new era of outcomes-based AI” (Mar. 4, 2022).
  33. Footnote 47.Brief of Amici Curiae Google LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Mozilla Corporation, and Pinterest, Inc. in Support of Petitioners, Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 24-171 (filed Sept. 5, 2025).
  34. Footnote 48.New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-51 (2001)
  35. Footnote 49.United States v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 736 F.2d 1039, 1042-46 (5th Cir. 1984) (Medicare and Medicaid payments to a hospital constitute federal financial assistance within the meaning of Section 504).
  36. Footnote 50.42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
  37. Footnote 51.42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).
  38. Footnote 52.Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England, 37 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1994).
  39. Footnote 53.Robles, 913 F.3d 898.
  40. Footnote 54.Carparts, 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) (public accommodation not limited to physical structures)
  41. Footnote 54.Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999) (same, in insurance context)
  42. Footnote 54.Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1999) (same).
  43. Footnote 55.Morales v. Kavulich & Associates, P.C., 294 F. Supp. 3d 193 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
  44. Footnote 55.National Federation of the Blind v. Scribd Inc., 97 F. Supp. 3d 565 (D. Vt. 2015) (digital service qualifies as place of public accommodation under Title III).
  45. Footnote 56.Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 1998)
  46. Footnote 56.Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006 (6th Cir. 1997) (nexus-based analysis in the insurance context).
  47. Footnote 63.Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (early case citing WCAG).
  48. Footnote 66.Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 299 (1985) (“Discrimination against the handicapped was perceived by Congress to be most often the product, not of invidious animus, but rather of thoughtlessness and indifference—of benign neglect.”).
  49. Footnote 67.45 C.F.R. § 84.68(b)(3).
  50. Footnote 67.Throughout this Article, citations are to the current § 84.68(b)(3).
  51. Footnote 68.42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(i).
  52. Footnote 69.42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).
  53. Footnote 70.42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).
  54. Footnote 71.Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. 2013) [hereinafter DSM-5], at criteria for 314.0x ADHD.
  55. Footnote 72.R.C. Kessler et al., “The Prevalence and Correlates of Adult ADHD in the United States: Results From the National Comorbidity Survey Replication,” 163 Am. J. Psychiatry 716, 716 (2006)
  56. Footnote 72.CDC, National Survey of Children’s Health (2022).
  57. Footnote 73.34 C.F.R. § 104.3(j) (definition of “individual with a disability” including mental impairments).
  58. Footnote 75.CDC, Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (2023 data).
  59. Footnote 77.R.Z. Goldstein & N.D. Volkow, “Dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in addiction: neuroimaging findings and clinical implications,” 12 Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 652 (2011).
  60. Footnote 80.Georgia Wells, Jeff Horwitz & Deepa Seetharaman, “Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show,” Wall St. J. (Sept. 14, 2021)
  61. Footnote 80.Frances Haugen testimony before U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security (Oct. 5, 2021).
  62. Footnote 82.Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 648 (1999).
  63. Footnote 84.Opening statement of Luis Li, counsel for YouTube/Google, KGM v. Meta & YouTube (Feb. 2026).
  64. Footnote 85.28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1).
  65. Footnote 86.DOJ, Americans with Disabilities Act Title III Technical Assistance Manual, III-4.3200 (discussing effective communication standards).
  66. Footnote 89.FTC, Bringing Dark Patterns to Light: Staff Report (Sept. 2022).
  67. Footnote 90.Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 7004 (CCPA regulations on dark patterns in consent)
  68. Footnote 90.Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1303(9) (Colorado Privacy Act dark pattern prohibition).
  69. Footnote 91.Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010)
  70. Footnote 91.Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010) (arbitration obligation depends on whether the parties agreed to arbitrate).
  71. Footnote 92.AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).
  72. Footnote 94.Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 444 n.1 (2006)
  73. Footnote 94.9 U.S.C. § 4.
  74. Footnote 95.Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Container Store, Inc., 904 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2018) (interface-inaccessibility formation challenge is a gateway question for the court, not the arbitrator).
  75. Footnote 98.Rodriguez v. City of New York, 197 F.3d 611, 618 (2d Cir. 1999).
  76. Footnote 99.Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 89 Fed. Reg. 40066 (May 9, 2024) (codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 84).
  77. Footnote 100.45 C.F.R. § 84.84(a)-(b) (2024).
  78. Footnote 101.45 C.F.R. § 84.84(b) (compliance deadlines)
  79. Footnote 101.§ 84.84(g) (exceptions).
  80. Footnote 102.Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).
  81. Footnote 103.29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2).
  82. Footnote 104.Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 937-38 (9th Cir. 2008).
  83. Footnote 106.Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 185 (2002).
  84. Footnote 107.Smith v. Barton, 914 F.2d 1330 (9th Cir. 1990) (permitting Section 504 disparate impact), with Powell v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 364 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004).
  85. Footnote 108.47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).
  86. Footnote 110.Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021).
  87. Footnote 111.Anderson v. TikTok, Inc., 116 F.4th 180 (3d Cir. 2024).
  88. Footnote 112.Electronic Privacy Information Center, Analysis of Anderson v. TikTok (2024)
  89. Footnote 114.Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 142 S. Ct. 1562 (2022).
  90. Footnote 115.29 U.S.C. § 794a
  91. Footnote 115.45 C.F.R. Part 84 Subpart G (HHS OCR enforcement procedures).
  92. Footnote 117.Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011).
  93. Footnote 118.42 U.S.C. § 15043 (Protection and Advocacy systems for persons with developmental disabilities)
  94. Footnote 118.42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq. (Protection and Advocacy for individuals with mental illness)
  95. Footnote 118.29 U.S.C. § 794e (Protection and Advocacy for Individual Rights program covering Section 504).
  96. Footnote 119.Complaint in In re Meta Multistate Action, N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 24, 2023 (multistate AG consumer protection action against Meta Platforms).
  97. Footnote 121.42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1).
  98. Footnote 122.42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).

All research