This article is co-authored by partner Drew LaFramboise and JGL law clerk Luke Bella.

For those growing up in the era of social media, having a social media presence is seen as a necessity from a young age. In 2026, more than 95% of kids aged 13-17 have social media accounts. One-third of kids aged 13-17 report using social media almost constantly. Despite most social media apps having policies that users must be at least thirteen years old to join, up to 2/3 of kids aged 11 and 12 years old have social media accounts. Though social media can help users stay in touch with friends and find community, there is significant evidence that excessive use, particularly among adolescents, is closely linked with negative mental health outcomes like depression and anxiety. For attorneys, this begs the question: Can social media companies be held liable for these harms?

According to the jury in the landmark case of K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., the answer is yes. K.G.M. v. Meta was the first case to reach trial in which a plaintiff alleged that a social media company should face tort liability for harm caused to an adolescent user’s mental health from its intentionally addictive features. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman from Chico, California, claimed that her compulsive use of Instagram and YouTube from a young age led to severe mental health harms like depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, self-harm, and body dysmorphia. The defendants in this case were Meta, the owner of Instagram, and Google, the owner of YouTube. On March 25, 2026, the jury found for the plaintiff, resulting in a $6 million verdict, including $4 million in punitive damages.

The Plaintiff’s Theories of Liability

The plaintiff in K.G.M. v. Meta made three central allegations:

  1. The defendants negligently designed addictive features such as algorithmically personalized feeds, infinite scrolling, push notifications, and engagement tools like public “likes” of posts to maximize compulsive use, while knowing the risks that these posed for minors.
  2. Despite internal awareness of the potential harms from defendants’ design choices, the platforms failed to adequately warn users, particularly minor users, about these harms.
  3. Meta and Google knowingly targeted minor users while fully aware that their systems were designed to exploit adolescent psychological vulnerabilities to keep them engaged.

The plaintiff made a number of key arguments, including:

  • Meta and Google intentionally targeted adolescent users and made decisions that prioritized profits over user safety, evidenced by internal documents and whistleblower testimony.
  • The designs of the platforms—rather than the specific content therein—were predatory and unsafe.
  • The harms caused by the defendants were foreseeable from their intentionally addictive features, with the plaintiff comparing the techniques used by the platforms to those used by slot machine designers and the tobacco industry.

Litigation Impact

For attorneys, K.G.M. v. Meta provides several important lessons for successfully pursuing tort claims against tech and social media platforms.  The plaintiff’s focus on intentional design decisions from developers being the root cause of her injuries, instead of scrutinizing the content allowed on the sites themselves, created a path around Section 230 immunity, which historically insulates social media companies from civil liability for third-party speech published on their platforms. Likewise, attorneys should focus on developers’ intentional design decisions made despite known risks to adolescent users.  Attorneys should follow the K.G.M. plaintiff’s strategy of focusing on social media companies’ internal knowledge of mental health risks to users, including companies’ intentional decisions to make design choices meant to foster addiction.

This bellwether case will likely give more negotiating power to plaintiffs during settlement discussions in the many similar cases currently pending in courts around the country. The groundwork laid by K.G.M. v. Meta should give practitioners a pathway to successfully prosecuting these cases, as more and more users continue to suffer the effects of significant social media use from a young age.

In an August 17, 2026, article published by Digital Health Insights, Veronica Nannis discussed a whistleblower lawsuit filed against Mayo Clinic. A former research director alleges that the health system concealed problems with its AI assistant and retaliated against her after she raised patient safety and privacy concerns.

Veronica expects cases involving AI in healthcare to become more common, including whistleblower, retaliation, and fraud claims.

“We’re going to start to see a lot of healthcare cases, either whistleblower ones like this, a retaliation case, or just a straight fraud case. Because what AI is being used for – I’m starting already to see it with some of my clients – it’s being used to replace the judgment of the practitioner,” Veronica said.

She also cautioned that these cases could take years to resolve, even when they move quickly.

“Cases like this take two to three years, if they’re fast.”

Read the full article, “Whistleblower lawsuit claims Mayo Clinic’s AI puts patient data, safety at risk.”

Timothy Maloney, Bridget Cardinale, and Deborah Jaffe represent Rashawn Williams and his family in a lawsuit against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).

The lawsuit stems from allegations that Rashawn Williams, a man with Down syndrome, became trapped inside a secured Area of Refuge at the Glenmont Metro Station for six days after Metro personnel failed to assist him and did not conduct required daily inspections of the area.

The Washington Post featured the case in an exclusive story after the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied WMATA’s motion to dismiss. The Court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged claims for negligence, disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and disability discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, allowing the case to move forward.

Maloney told The Washington Post:

“The federal court’s opinion should be a wake-up call to WMATA, which has apparently learned nothing from what happened to Rashawn. As long as WMATA denies responsibility for disabled patrons like Rashawn, more tragedies are likely in the future.”

Read The Washington Post Article here. (PDF)

Drew LaFramboise was quoted in Bloomberg Law discussing the impact of judicial vacancies on Washington, D.C.’s court system as the Senate considers a slate of judicial nominees to help address the growing case backlog.

“The vacancies have also left local judges and their staff struggling to handle hundreds of cases,” Drew said, highlighting the strain the vacancies have placed on the administration of justice.

Read the full article, Senate Gears Up to Confirm Judges for Backlogged Local DC Courts, to learn more.

The Daily Record has named David Bulitt and Paul Riekhof to its inaugural MD500, a new annual publication recognizing Maryland’s most influential leaders across business, law, nonprofit organizations, higher education, and other fields.

Bulitt was recognized in Alternative Dispute Resolution, while Riekhof was recognized in Trusts & Estates Law.

According to The Daily Record, the MD500 showcases individuals who are making a lasting impact through leadership, innovation, and influence across the state.

View the complete 2026 MD500 list here.

A Maryland prenuptial agreement can address many financial matters, including how property, debts, and spousal support may be handled if a marriage ends. However, it cannot include provisions that violate public policy or determine issues such as child custody or child support.

A well-drafted prenuptial agreement allows couples to establish clear financial expectations before marriage. Understanding what can and cannot be included can help you make informed decisions and create an agreement that is more likely to be upheld if challenged later.

Maryland has not adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act. Instead, prenuptial agreements are governed by Maryland Ann. Code, Family Law Art, § 8-101, and common law contract principles developed through court decisions.

What Can Be Included in a Maryland Prenuptial Agreement?

Maryland law allows couples flexibility when creating a prenuptial agreement, provided both parties enter into it voluntarily and the terms are lawful.

Common terms and provisions include:

  • How premarital and non-marital property will be identified and protected
  • How marital property will be divided in the event of divorce
  • Responsibility for debts incurred before or during the marriage
  • Whether either spouse may receive alimony and, if so, under what conditions
  • Rights involving family businesses, investments, retirement accounts, or inheritances
  • How jointly purchased property will be treated

A prenuptial agreement may also establish procedures for handling future financial matters, helping reduce uncertainty if circumstances change.

What Cannot Be Included in a Maryland Prenuptial Agreement?

Although prenuptial agreements offer broad flexibility, there are important limits.

For example, you cannot include provisions that:

  • Predetermine child custody arrangements
  • Waive or limit a child’s right to receive child support
  • Require a spouse to engage in any illegal conduct
  • Encourage divorce or otherwise violate public policy

Maryland courts decide custody and child support based on the child’s best interests at the time of the custody dispute. Because children’s needs can change over time, parents cannot make binding decisions about these issues before marriage or divorce.

Can You Waive Alimony in a Maryland Prenuptial Agreement?

Yes, Maryland prenuptial agreements may include provisions that limit or waive alimony. Courts generally enforce these provisions when the agreement was entered into voluntarily, both parties had adequate knowledge of each other’s financial circumstances, and the terms are not otherwise unenforceable. However, courts may carefully review alimony waivers if questions arise about fairness, coercion, fraud, or other circumstances affecting the validity of the agreement.

What Makes a Maryland Prenuptial Agreement Enforceable?

A prenuptial agreement is more likely to be enforced when it is prepared carefully, and both parties have an opportunity to make informed decisions before signing.

Some factors that strengthen enforceability include:

  • Full, frank, and truthful financial disclosure
  • Voluntary execution without pressure or coercion
  • Clear, understandable language
  • Adequate time to review the agreement before the wedding
  • Each party having the opportunity to consult independent legal counsel

Although Maryland does not require each spouse to have a separate attorney, independent legal advice can help demonstrate that both parties understood the agreement before signing.

Can a Prenuptial Agreement Be Changed After Marriage?

Yes. Married couples may modify or revoke a prenuptial agreement if both spouses agree to the changes. This is called a post-nuptial agreement. Any modification should be made in writing with the same formality as the initial prenuptial agreement and properly executed to avoid future disputes.

As your financial circumstances change, reviewing an existing agreement may help ensure it continues to reflect the goals of the marital couple.

When Should You Start Preparing a Prenuptial Agreement?

The best time to begin discussing a prenuptial agreement is well before your wedding date. Waiting until the last minute can create unnecessary pressure and may increase the likelihood that one party later claims they were forced to sign or did not have sufficient time to review the agreement with legal counsel.

Starting early allows both individuals to gather financial information, discuss expectations, negotiate terms thoughtfully, and consult with independent legal counsel if desired.

A prenuptial agreement can provide clarity about financial expectations before marriage, but it must be carefully drafted to comply with Maryland law. Including unenforceable provisions or failing to follow proper procedures can create problems if the agreement is challenged later.

If you are considering a prenuptial agreement, Darin L. Rumer can help you understand your options, prepare an agreement based on your financial circumstances, or review an existing draft before you sign.

Joseph Greenwald & Laake is pleased to announce that Virginia “Gia” Grimm has been elevated to Senior Counsel.

Since joining JGL, Gia has advocated for employees in labor and employment matters, representing clients in cases involving workplace discrimination, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, and abuse. She also pursues False Claims Act (qui tam) cases on behalf of whistleblowers as a member of the firm’s Whistleblower team.

Most couples who are planning a wedding do not know exactly what their lives will look like in five, ten, or twenty years.  They may both be working when they get married, may earn similar incomes, may contribute to their own retirement accounts, maintain separate health insurance, and expect their careers to continue on roughly parallel tracks.  Then they have children.

As is all too well known, raising children is typically more expensive than one can predict.  That expense can come in the form of dollars as well as time.  When a couple thinks about what their child-filled life will look like, they begin to consider questions like whether one spouse’s job may require longer hours or frequent travel, child-based medical, educational, or developmental needs, the potential need to relocate for one spouse’s career, etc.  Eventually, the couple may come to the conclusion that it is more financially logical for one parent to stop working, reduce hours, turn down a promotion, or accept a more flexible but less lucrative position.  That decision has consequences that can be very far-reaching and are rarely equal.

A thoughtfully drafted prenuptial agreement can address those consequences before the sacrifice occurs.

Leaving the Workforce Costs More Than a Salary

When a parent leaves employment for several years, the most obvious loss is current income.  But salary is only one part of the calculation.

Consider a spouse earning $80,000 per year who leaves the workforce for eight years to care for two children.  A quick calculation puts the lost salary at $640,000. The actual economic effect may be considerably larger.  During those eight years, that spouse may also lose:

  • Raises, bonuses, commissions, and overtime;
  • Employer retirement contributions and matching funds;
  • Pension service credits;
  • Stock options, restricted stock, or profit-sharing benefits;
  • Employer-sponsored health and disability benefits;
  • Professional licenses or certifications;
  • Seniority and eligibility for promotion;
  • Industry contacts, clients, and referral relationships; and
  • Years of investment growth and compound returns.

The working spouse, meanwhile, generally continues moving forward.  In many families, the arrangement benefits everyone, but it is not without its potential problems, including making the decision without addressing who will carry the long-term financial risk.

Returning to Work May Not Undo the Damage

It is easy to assume that the parent who stayed home can simply return to work when the children are older.  In practice, reentry is not always straightforward.

Technology changes.  Professional contacts move on.  Licenses lapse.  A person who left a management position may have to return at a lower level or accept part-time work.  Additional education or retraining may be necessary.  All of these consequences are predictable and often likely.

Why Not Simply Rely on Alimony?

Maryland courts consider numerous factors when determining whether to award alimony, including the parties’ financial resources, the duration of the marriage, their monetary and non-monetary contributions, the standard of living established during the marriage, and the time necessary for a spouse to obtain education or training.  Those factors allow a court to consider the consequences of a career interruption.  They do not, however, create a simple reimbursement formula.

A court does not ordinarily calculate every missed paycheck, lost promotion, unmade retirement contribution, and year of foregone investment growth and then order the working spouse to repay that amount.  An alimony award may help a spouse become self-supporting or address a substantial financial disparity, but it may not recreate the economic position that spouse would have occupied if the career interruption had never occurred.

There is also inherent uncertainty in litigation. The amount, duration, and availability of alimony may depend on the particular facts presented years later, the parties’ circumstances at the time of separation, and the terms of any existing agreement.

In contrast, a prenuptial agreement can reduce that uncertainty by establishing in advance what will happen if one spouse makes a defined career sacrifice for the family.

What Is a Career-Sacrifice Provision?

A career-sacrifice provision creates financial rights when a specifically defined event occurs.

For example, the provision might apply when one spouse:

  • Leaves full-time employment following the birth or adoption of a child;
  • Reduces employment below an agreed number of hours;
  • Experiences a defined reduction in income for childcare reasons;
  • Relocates to support the other spouse’s employment;
  • Declines a promotion or professional opportunity for the family;
  • Remains outside the workforce for a minimum period; or
  • Assumes primary responsibility for a child with extraordinary needs.

The triggering event should be objective.  Language stating only that the provision applies when a spouse “stays home for the family” may generate more questions than it answers.  Details matter because the agreement may be interpreted many years after it is signed, at a time when the spouses no longer agree about what they originally intended.

What Protection Can the Agreement Provide?

There is no single formula that works for every couple.  The appropriate protection depends on the parties’ earnings, assets, career paths, family plans, and broader financial agreement.  However, there are some general options available to consider:

Retirement Contributions

The working spouse may agree to fund retirement savings for the spouse who leaves employment.  This can help replace at least part of the retirement security that would otherwise have accumulated through employee contributions, employer matching funds, and investment growth.  Because retirement accounts are subject to eligibility requirements and federal contribution limits, the agreement should address what happens if a direct retirement contribution is not available.  One alternative may be a separately titled investment account maintained for the nonworking spouse.

An Independent Investment or Security Account

A couple may agree to make periodic deposits into an account held in the name of the spouse who reduced or left employment.  That account can provide more than protection in the event of divorce.  It can also preserve a measure of financial independence during the marriage, particularly when one spouse no longer receives a regular paycheck.  The agreement should identify who owns the account, who controls the investments, whether funds may be withdrawn during the marriage, and what happens to the account upon separation, divorce, or death.

Enhanced Property Rights

Rather than requiring annual payments, the agreement may grant the nonworking spouse increased property rights after the triggering event.  For example, the spouse may receive a larger interest in the marital home, a defined monetary payment, or an increasing benefit based on the number of years spent outside the workforce.  A graduated structure may better reflect the reality that a ten-year career interruption generally carries a greater financial cost than a one-year leave.

Alimony Protection

Some prenuptial agreements broadly waive alimony.  That waiver may appear reasonable when both future spouses are employed and financially independent.  It may look very different after one spouse leaves a career to raise the parties’ children.  A career-sacrifice provision can preserve alimony rights that would otherwise be waived, create a minimum payment, establish a duration, or increase support based on the length of the career interruption.  The provision should also coordinate with the rest of the agreement. A carefully drafted career-protection clause can be undermined if another section contains an inconsistent or overly broad waiver.

Education and Workforce-Reentry Expenses

Returning to employment may require new credentials, continuing education, updated licensing, professional coaching, or an entirely new degree.  The agreement can establish a fund for those expenses and define how much will be available for the expenses, the period of time within which to utilize the funds, eligible programs, etc.

Life and Disability Insurance

A stay-at-home parent may be particularly vulnerable if the income-earning spouse dies or becomes unable to work.  The agreement may require life insurance naming the nonworking spouse as a beneficiary, disability coverage on the income-earning spouse, or both.  It should address the amount of coverage, how long the obligation continues, and how the beneficiary designation will be verified.

Financial Independence During the Marriage Matters Too

A career-sacrifice provision should not focus only on what happens after divorce.  Leaving employment can change the balance of financial power within a marriage.  The nonworking spouse may gradually lose an independent credit history and may have limited knowledge of the family’s business or retirement assets.

A well-designed agreement can establish expectations during the marriage, including equal access to financial records, individually titled accounts, regular retirement or investment contributions, and funds that each spouse may control independently.  These provisions are not necessarily signs of distrust, but rather recognize that financial transparency and reasonable independence can strengthen a marriage, particularly when one spouse has assumed greater economic risk for the family.

A Prenup Can Protect More Than Premarital Wealth

While protecting property accumulated before marriage remains an important function of a prenuptial agreement, it can also address risks that have not yet materialized, including decisions that benefit the family while permanently weakening his or her individual financial position.

For individuals considering a prenuptial agreement in Maryland but also aware of likely scenarios, such as career sacrifice, planning beforehand with an attorney experienced in specifically tailored language, such as a career-sacrifice clause, can help support the parties’ finances, anticipated family structure, and long-term goals.  

Christopher R. Castellano represents clients in prenuptial, postnuptial, divorce, custody, and other Maryland family law matters.

In a July 2026 article published by Maryland Bar Journal magazine, Christopher Castellano explores how family law attorneys can use artificial intelligence responsibly while avoiding the evidentiary and ethical challenges it presents. As clients increasingly bring AI-generated documents, summaries, and custody proposals into their cases, Christopher explains what that means for practitioners.

Family law evidence often includes everyday materials such as text message screenshots, social media posts, and financial spreadsheets. Christopher explains that AI can make this information appear organized and credible even when it is inaccurate or incomplete. He points to Maryland Rule 5-901 as a key standard for authenticating evidence and highlights a recent Maryland appellate case involving fabricated AI-generated citations as a cautionary example. No matter what tool creates the content, attorneys remain personally responsible for everything they submit.

“The broader lesson is that AI does not dilute the lawyer’s personal responsibility for legal work submitted to your client or a court,” Christopher wrote.

“It is the attorneys who responsibly embrace AI that will help to forge a new and successful path forward, as opposed to those who reject AI, who risk being left behind.”

Read the full article, “Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Family Law.”

In a July 24, 2026, article published by Law.com, Brian Markovitz discusses the growing role of AI in employment litigation and the recent lawsuit against Meta involving AI.

Meta Platforms Inc. faces an employment lawsuit alleging the company relied on artificial intelligence and algorithmic inputs to make termination decisions without properly accounting for employees with disabilities or those on medical or family leave.

While two California cases—Mobley v. Workday and Kistler et al. v. Eightfold AI Inc.—focus on AI in the hiring process, the Meta case appears to be the first to challenge the use of AI in employment terminations.

In his interview with Law.com, Brian explains that the case could mark a new “wave of the future” in employment litigation, potentially ushering in more lawsuits involving AI. He also notes that the lawsuit’s focus on Meta may be intended to send a message to major technology companies and other organizations that rely heavily on AI.

“It certainly gets people’s attention, because it is one of the big powerhouses in tech,” Brian said in his interview. “… It’s definitely a strategy, I think, to… try to get some sort of judicial oversight and some attention to AI being used [as] a way of measuring human beings’ productivity.”

Read the full article, “‘Wave of the Future’: Meta Faces Novel Suit for Allegedly Using AI Systems to Fire Workers.” (PDF)

JGL Partner Drew LaFramboise, who serves as President of the Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, DC (DCTLA), recently testified before the DC Council on legislation addressing autonomous vehicles in the District.

In his testimony, Drew stressed the importance of public safety and accountability as autonomous vehicle technology becomes more common on DC roads.

“AV companies must be considered drivers under the law,” Drew said. He also called for clear safety standards and an enforcement framework that holds AV companies accountable when violations go uncorrected.

Learn more about the legislation or watch the hearing.

Drew Dc

In a June 16, 2026, article published by Corporate Compliance Insights, Veronica Nannis discusses how companies can reduce False Claims Act risk by building compliance programs that function in practice—not just on paper.

Drawing on guidance from the Department of Justice and the HHS Office of Inspector General, Veronica explains that many FCA investigations stem from avoidable compliance failures. These include treating compliance as a box-checking exercise, limiting the authority of compliance personnel, and failing to properly investigate allegations of potential fraud.

Veronica also emphasizes the importance of strong internal reporting and response procedures. Employees often raise concerns within an organization before turning to whistleblower litigation or government investigators, making early intervention critical to identifying and addressing compliance issues.

“How an entity responds when it finds a violation resulting in a substantial overpayment or serious misconduct sets apart those that have a strong compliance program from those with a compliance program that is more form than substance,” Veronica wrote.

Read the full article, “The Feds Are Telling You How to Mitigate FCA Liability; Have You Paid Attention?