Design, notice, and causation, for this injury specifically.
Every quoted document below is drawn from the public litigation record. Where the causation science is contested, we say so rather than round it off.
The features at issue
Image- and video-first formats. Quantification of engagement through likes and follower counts. Beauty-retouching camera effects and appearance-altering AR, including cosmetic-surgery simulations. Algorithmic recommendation that can surface eating-disorder and self-harm content.
Dkt. 3012-4 – Dkt. 3029-4
What was known, and by whom
An internal evaluation of cosmetic-surgery effects acknowledged the issue was especially sensitive for younger users, who were the largest demographic. Teams agreed to a temporary policy halting approval of those effects. An internal summary records a conversation with 18 outside experts, a large majority of whom recommended prohibiting the filters outright.
Dkt. 3012-4 – Dkt. 3165-1
An admission on the record
Asked whether the harms include depression, body dysmorphia, and eating disorders, a senior executive testified yes to each, separately, on the record, under oath.
Dkt. 3029-3
How this is assessed
Adolescent psychologists describe appearance-focused, quantified feeds as risk factors for disordered eating. Specific causation for one child remains contested; chronology, records, and differential analysis decide an individual claim.
Dkt. 3026-6 – Dkt. 3165-1
We will not tell you that these documents guarantee a result. They establish that the features and the knowledge are documented. Whether they explain your child's injury depends on records no one outside the treating clinicians has yet reviewed.
You are not looking for a diagnosis. You are trying to understand what happened.
A teenager who will not eat, who cannot stop scrolling, who has become unrecognizable to themselves in a photograph — and no one can tell you why. That is a frightening place to be standing, and it is the reason this practice area exists.
Some families come to us with a diagnosis and a stack of records. Some come with a gut feeling and a phone full of screenshots. Some are not sure their child is sick at all, and are looking for someone who will take them seriously enough to find out.
We will tell you what the documents show, what they do not show, and what would have to be true for this to explain what happened to your child. We will not tell you it is certain, because it is not.
A review is free and confidential. A lawyer reads every submission and responds within two business days.
How the documented decisions unfolded.
Order matters in these cases. This is the sequence the record describes, from the first appearance effects through the internal reconsideration.
- Appearance-altering AR effects enter the platform
Younger users become the largest demographic using them, later acknowledged in Meta’s own product policy research.
Dkt. 3012-4
- Trust and Safety weighs the mental health risk
A memo on beauty-retouching panel effects sets out safety and brand-trust concerns, including effects on younger users.
MDL exhibit
- 18 outside experts are consulted
Psychologists, researchers, body-image advocates, and AR professionals. A large majority recommend prohibiting the filters outright.
Dkt. 3165-1
- A temporary halt on cosmetic-surgery effects
Policy teams agree to stop approving the effects, on a temporary basis, given documented mental health impact on teens.
Dkt. 3029-4
- Restrictions are questioned at executive level
A thread asks whether to lift the limits. A parent of a teen hospitalized for body dysmorphia describes the pressure in her own words.
Dkt. 3012-10
- Most time-sensitive
- Saved and edited photos. A removed edit is usually unrecoverable, and they are the best evidence of effect usage.
For this injury, these records matter most.
Body-image harm leaves a specific trace: the effects used, the edits saved and discarded, the filters applied. Save them before the account changes hands.
- Saved and edited photosThe camera roll and the app editing history, including discarded versions.
- Effect names usedWhich beauty or AR effects your child applied, and when, if the app records it.
- Feed screenshotsAppearance-focused content in the feed, with dates, and the captions and comments around it.
- Body and weight recordsPediatric visits, weight notes, any disordered-eating screening, and lab work.
- Treatment recordsED screening and referral notes, therapy records, and any inpatient or residential admission.
- Platform reportsAny report you or your child filed about content or effects, and the response received.
- Purchase historyIn-app purchases of effects or filters, with dates and amounts.
- A written timelineFirst noticed change, first clinical concern, first admission, in order, with approximate dates.
The harm was documented before the question was asked.
This is the part that is difficult to read, and it is the part that matters. The features existed. The internal research existed. The outside experts were consulted. Only afterwards did anyone ask whether to keep them.
Younger users were already the largest demographic. The company’s own product policy research acknowledged that appearance-altering effects were “especially sensitive for their potential impact on younger users, who are the biggest demographic using our Spark [AR] effects.” That is not an outside critic writing. That is the internal assessment, in the company’s own words.
Eighteen outside experts were asked. An internal summary records a conversation with eighteen experts — psychologists, researchers, body-image advocates, AR professionals. A large majority recommended prohibiting the filters outright, citing known impacts.
The company took a temporary position. Teams agreed to stop approving cosmetic-surgery effects, on a temporary basis, given documented mental-health impact on teens. A Trust & Safety memo on beauty-retouching panel effects set out the safety and brand-trust concerns.
An executive questioned the limits. A thread among executive participants asked whether to lift the restrictions. A parent in that thread described her own daughters in her own words.
A senior executive answered under oath. Asked whether the harms include depression, body dysmorphia, and eating disorders, the witness answered yes to each — separately, on the record, under oath.
This sequence is documented in the litigation record. We are not inferring intent from it. We are showing you the order in which the decisions were made.
Four things you should hear from us before you hear them anywhere else.
We will not tell you your child qualifies.
Eligibility requires individualized legal and medical review. Anyone who can tell you whether you qualify before they have seen a single record is guessing. We will not guess.
We will not quote you a number.
Some cases have produced large verdicts. Some have settled quietly. None of that tells you what your case is worth, and we do not publish settlement figures or averages. Any firm that does is selling you something other than a representation.
We will not tell you the science is settled.
Researchers disagree about how much social media causes mental harm, and defense experts attack that evidence in court. Association is well documented. Specific causation for one child is contested. We will tell you where the disagreement is instead of pretending it is not there.
We will not blame you for the screen time.
Parents are told constantly that they should be managing this better. If your child developed a disordered relationship with these apps in the years when the design was optimized for exactly that, the supervision question is a real one — and it is not the only question.
You will hear back from a lawyer. Here is what we ask for, and what we do not.
You tell us what happened.
When usage started, when you first noticed something was wrong, when a clinician first said something out loud. Roughly is fine. A date you remember is better than a date you think you should have remembered.
We tell you what we are missing.
If we need records you do not have, we will say exactly which ones and where to get them. If a claim is too late to bring, we will tell you that instead of taking the case.
You decide with full information.
Including the parts that are unfavorable. There is no pressure to decide on the first call, and no deadline we will invent to create one.
If your child is in immediate danger
Do not wait for a legal review. Call or text 988 for the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, or 911 if there is immediate danger. For exploitation or child sexual abuse, contact the NCMEC CyberTipline. Our crisis resources page has the full list.
Submissions are reviewed for intake and claim assessment. Submitting a form does not create an attorney-client relationship. We will confirm that relationship in writing before any further work.