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
Recommendation systems that can surface self-harm and eating-disorder content to a young person. Visible like counts. Notification design that extends a session past the point a young person intended to stop. These are the documented product features the causation and damages experts in this matter address.
Dkt. 3168-10 – Dkt. 3010-5
What was known, and by whom
Internal well-being research recorded known harm from engagement features, and executive testimony addressed whether growth was prioritized over safety. The internal record and the sworn denials sit beside each other in the same docket.
JCCP 01495 – Dkt. 3248-24 – Dkt. 3248-21
An admission on the record
Asked under oath whether the recognized harms include depression, body dysmorphia, and eating disorders, a senior executive answered yes to each, separately, on the record.
Dkt. 3029-3
How this is assessed
Adolescent-development and addiction-medicine experts describe quantified, recommendation-driven feeds as risk factors for self-directed harm. Specific causation for one child remains contested; chronology, records, and differential analysis of alternative causes decide an individual claim.
Expert reports – Dkt. 3168-10
These documents establish that the features and the knowledge are documented. They do not by themselves establish what caused any one child’s injury. Whether they explain your child’s situation 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 young person who was funny and present, who has gone quiet, who is up at three in the morning, whose feed keeps showing them exactly the content you would have kept from them. That is a frightening place to be standing, and it is why this practice area exists.
Some families come to us after an attempt, a hospitalization, or a safety plan they never expected to need. Some come with a phone full of screenshots and a feeling that something is very wrong. Some are not sure, 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 design 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.
The documented order of events.
Order matters in these cases. This is the sequence the record describes, from the known harm through the remedy that was studied and the version that shipped.
-
Hiding like counts is raised internally
The remedy enters the internal discussion record, after the company’s own researchers identified harm to young users from quantified social comparison.
Dkt. 3246-12
-
An opt-in version ships, years later
Users can turn off like counts, but must choose to. An opt-in setting is not a fix for a default; teen accounts still see engagement quantification by default.
Dkt. 3246-12 – Dkt. 3168-3
-
A related control ships after five years
A comparable notification-control feature, also discussed in 2017, launches in 2023.
Dkt. 3246-12
-
The recommendation record
Internal messages describe a ranking system tuned to maximize engagement, and state that it applies to teens as much as to the general population.
Ex. 37, Dkt. 3011-19
- Most time-sensitive
- What the feed showed them and when. Recommended content changes with the account and cannot be reconstructed later.
For this injury, these records matter most.
The harm from a recommendation feed leaves a specific trace: the content it showed, the notifications it pushed, and the clinical record of what followed. Save them before anything changes.
- Recommended-content screenshotsWhat the feed and the Reels or For You page showed, with dates, and the accounts and sounds around it.
- Notification historyPush notifications and the app’s own activity log, exported rather than viewed.
- “Not interested” and report historyAny content your child hid, muted, or reported, and any response received.
- Direct messages and group chatsThe full conversations, not screenshots of fragments.
- Screen-time and usage recordsWeekly and monthly reports from the device, exported.
- Psychiatric and emergency recordsEmergency visits, safety plans, inpatient or residential care, and medication history.
- School counseling recordsCounselor notes, accommodation plans, and attendance that show change over time.
- A written chronologyFirst sign, first disclosure, first clinical concern, first crisis, in order, with approximate dates.
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 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.
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.
We will not blame you for the screen time.
Parents are told constantly that they should have managed this better. If the applications were designed for daily return in the years your child was using them, the supervision question is a real one, and it is not the only question.
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. Our crisis resources page has the full list.
Submitting a form does not create an attorney-client relationship. We will confirm that relationship in writing before any further work.