Scrolling 2 Death

In this eye-opening conversation, Nicki Petrossi sits down with neuroscientist Jared Cooney-Horvath to unpack the claims behind i-Ready—one of the most widely used EdTech tools in U.S. classrooms. What starts as a discussion of Nicki’s data privacy lawsuit quickly expands into a deeper investigation: does i-Ready actually help kids learn?

Jared breaks down the startling lack of credible, peer-reviewed research supporting i-Ready’s effectiveness, explaining how most claims rely on weak comparisons or company-backed studies. He reveals why “time on task” can be misleading, how EdTech companies shape persuasive narratives without solid evidence, and why human-led instruction consistently outperforms digital tools when it comes to real learning.

Together, they connect the dots between data privacy concerns and academic outcomes—arguing that if a product isn’t meaningfully improving learning, schools must question why it’s being used at all. The episode also explores the growing national momentum among parents, teachers, and districts pushing back on excessive screen time and demanding accountability from EdTech companies.

If you’ve ever wondered what’s really behind the tools your child is required to use in school, this conversation gives you the data—and the questions—you need to start pushing for answers.

Jared's Substack: i-Ready: 13 Million Students, Zero Meaningful Evidence
Parent-Teacher i-Ready Resource

In this mini-episode of Scrolling 2 Death, Nicki brought in Lila Byock to break down a major victory: the Los Angeles Unified School District has unanimously passed a sweeping new technology policy that limits screen use for students. After months of relentless advocacy from parents and teachers, the district is eliminating devices for its youngest learners, restricting platforms like YouTube, and setting clear screen time boundaries. They discuss what passed and how this moment could spark a nationwide shift in how schools use technology—and how you can bring these changes to your own district.

LAUSD's new policy linked here

Sign up at Schools Beyond Screens

So…I’ve sued another EdTech company. Here's a direct link to information on the lawsuit.

This time, it’s Curriculum Associates — the multi-billion-dollar maker of i-Ready, used by more than 14 million children in grades K–8, including my own.

In this episode, I break down why we’ve filed a lawsuit alleging that Curriculum Associates’ core business model depends on harvesting massive amounts of student data, monetizing it, and allegedly sharing children’s personal information with dozens of third parties for commercial purposes. We further allege the company builds deeply invasive psychological and behavioral profiles on students — profiles that can follow them and potentially harm them.

I never consented to this. And neither did millions of parents.

Sending our children to public school is a legal right. We should not have to expose them to commercial data trafficking just to get an education.

With the average school district using thousands of EdTech tools each year — and each child accessing dozens — the question isn’t whether this is happening. The question is whether parents ever gave meaningful, informed consent.

Joining me is Andy Liddell, attorney with the EdTech Law Center, to answer the questions flooding in from parents and teachers:
What exactly are we alleging?
What data is actually being collected?
Is academic growth tracking the same as data mining?
Can parents opt out?
Is this a class action?
What can teachers do?
And what do we say to critics who claim this is just fear-mongering?

If you’re a parent, teacher, or school leader, this conversation is one you cannot afford to miss.

If you’re interested in learning more or potentially joining an EdTech-related lawsuit, visit: edtech.law.

Because this isn’t just about i-Ready.

It’s about whether our children’s data belongs to them — or to corporations.

On March 25, 2026, after eight days of deliberation, the jury reached a verdict in the first bellwether trial against Meta and YouTube.

The verdict: The jury ruled in favor of Kaley on all counts. Scroll down to the bottom of this description for the full verdict.

This week, we take you inside the final, nerve-wracking days in the hallway and courtroom — the jury questions about expert testimony, deleted accounts, Instagram usage, punitive damages, and the moment they told the judge they were deadlocked with one defendant.

We walk through what each question meant, what it revealed about the jury’s thinking, and how both sides responded. You’ll hear what happened in real time as families waited, attorneys speculated, and the stakes became crystal clear.

We’re joined by Laura Marquez-Garrett of the Social Media Victims Law Center to break down:
What the verdict actually means
Whether an appeal is likely
Why early bellwether cases often shape — but don’t decide — the larger war
What happens next in the thousands of cases still moving forward

Because this was never just about one family.

It the most powerful tech companies in the world… versus families. And this verdict is the accelerator of justice.

The trials continue. Thousands of families. Dozens of states. School districts. The pressure is building. We’ll continue to be inside the courtroom translating it all for parents everywhere.

The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.

Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.

Are you willing to take action against Big Tech? Join us in D.C.! Fill out this form.

THE VERDICT

META
Was Meta negligent in the design or operation of Instagram? YES
Was Meta’s negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES
Did Meta know or should it reasonably have known that the design or operation of Instagram was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used by a minor in a reasonably foreseeable manner? YES‍
Did Meta know or should it reasonably have known that users would not realize the danger? YES
Did Meta fail to adequately warn of the danger? YES
Would a reasonable platform designer or operator under the same or similar circumstances have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of the platform? YES
Was Meta's failure to adequately warn or instruct a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES

YOUTUBE
Was YouTube negligent in the design or operation of YouTube? YES
Was YouTube's negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES
Did YouTube know or should it reasonably have known that the design or operation of YouTube was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used by a minor in a reasonably foreseeable manner? YES‍
Did YouTube know or should it reasonably have known that users would not realize the danger? YES
Did YouTube fail to adequately warn of the danger? YES
Would a reasonable platform designer or operator under the same or similar circumstances have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of the platform? YES
Was YouTube's failure to adequately warn or instruct a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES
‍
THE DAMAGES

A. What are KGM's damages? 
$3,000,000

B. What percentage of responsibility for K.G.M.’s harm do you assign to each of the following? 
70% Meta
30% YouTube

C. Do you find that K.G.M. proved by clear and convincing evidence that Meta acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in conduct upon which you base your finding of liability? YES

D. Do you find that K.G.M. proved by clear and convincing evidence that YouTube acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in conduct upon which you base your finding of liability? YES

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: $3,000,000 ($2.1M to Meta, $900K to YouTube)

This week on The Heat is On…Big Tech on Trial, we reached a turning point.

After weeks of testimony, we heard from the final witnesses — including Meta’s paid medical expert, internal researchers, and YouTube leadership. New details emerged about deleted watch history data, internal warnings about teen risk, and what company executives knew about under-13 enforcement.

Then came closing arguments.

Mark Lanier argued that platform design targeted Kaley from a young age. Attorneys for Meta and YouTube pushed back, claiming there is no proven causal link between social media and mental health struggles, for Kaley or anyone else.

Friday morning, the jury began deliberating.

Now nine jurors must decide:
Were these platforms negligently designed in ways that substantially contributed to Kaley’s anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts? Or not?

We’re inside the courtroom translating what this case means for parents everywhere — because these trials aren't just about one child. It could shape the future of accountability for TikTok, YouTube, Meta, and Snap Inc..

Verdict watch has begun.

The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.

Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.