The feed was built to hold a child’s attention for as long as it could. Where that caused real harm, the design decisions are the case.
September 2026: Families are bringing claims alleging the major social media platforms were engineered to be compulsively engaging for adolescents, and that the resulting harm was foreseeable. The claims are built on product design, not on what any user posted, which is what allows them to proceed past the federal immunity that protects platforms for third-party content.
What decides most of these cases is the clinical record. A documented diagnosis, treatment that followed the period of heaviest use, and account or screen time data are worth more than any description of how bad it got.
We handle social media, Roblox, and Discord design claims as part of a product liability practice built on complex corporate litigation, not as an add-on.
A flat contingency fee and nothing out of pocket. The firm advances every case expense, and if there is no recovery you owe nothing, including expenses.
The firm is small on purpose. Aimée Robert works the file, and a first conversation is confidential, free, and commits you to nothing.
The injury has to be documented, not described.
These claims are brought for adolescents who developed diagnosed conditions during a period of heavy platform use: depression, anxiety, disordered eating, self-harm, and in the most serious cases suicidal ideation or an attempt.
What carries a claim is the clinical record. Treatment notes made at the time, a diagnosis from a treating provider, hospitalization records where they exist, and school records showing the change in functioning. A parent’s account of what they watched happen matters, and it is not a substitute for the chart.
Reported associations between heavy platform use and adolescent mental health outcomes are not proof that a particular platform caused a particular child’s illness. That is decided case by case, on medical evidence and expert testimony.
The design features at issue were built to maximize time on platform.
The allegations concern infinite scroll, autoplay, variable reward mechanics in notifications and likes, streaks that penalize a day away, and recommendation systems that escalate toward whatever holds attention longest.
None of that is content. Every item on that list is an engineering decision, made by the company, documented internally, and adjustable at any time. That distinction is what moves the case out of publishing and into product liability.
Age verification that the companies allegedly knew did not work.
Platforms with a stated minimum age generally accept a self-reported birthday. Claims in this area allege the companies understood how many users were below the stated age, measured it internally, and built the product for them anyway.
Where a platform designed for adults was in practice designed around children, the duty owed to those children is the question, and it is one the company answers with its own documents.
The instinct when a parent sees what has been happening is to delete the apps and take the phone. That is a reasonable parenting decision and it can cost you the evidence.
Before anything else: export the account data while the accounts are still open, because platforms purge it on their own schedule once an account is closed. Screenshot what you can see. Save the device rather than resetting it. Pull the built-in screen time reports, which are often the clearest record of how much use there actually was.
Then keep every clinical record, including the intake notes, which frequently contain the history in the family’s own words. In these cases the documentation does most of the work.
These claims do not argue that a platform published something harmful. That framing runs directly into the federal statute protecting online services from liability for what their users post. They argue the product was defectively designed for the adolescents it was built to hold, which is a question about engineering decisions rather than about speech.
The claim targets infinite scroll, autoplay, notification mechanics, and recommendation systems. Those are choices the company made, not content a user posted.
A diagnosis documented while it was happening is worth more than any later account. Contemporaneous treatment records are the strongest evidence in these files.
Two decades of complex product and pharmaceutical litigation against companies with full-time national counsel. That is the same fight, one industry over.
These cases are slow and they involve discovery into a child’s mental health history. That is a conversation to have honestly at the start, not after filing.
Potentially. The claims being brought allege these platforms were defectively designed to be compulsively engaging for adolescents, and that the companies understood the risk. Whether a specific claim is viable depends on the age at first use, the duration, the documented diagnosis, and what the clinical records show.
The medical record. A diagnosis from a treating provider, treatment notes made at the time, and any hospitalization records. Alongside that, screen time reports and account data showing the extent of use. Preserve the accounts and export the data before closing anything.
Federal law protects online services from liability for content their users post. These claims are not about content. They are about how the product was designed: the engagement mechanics, the notification systems, the recommendation engine, and the age verification. Design decisions belong to the company, which is what allows these claims to proceed.
Robert Law Group is a Houston, TX and Salt Lake City, UT based law firm. The information provided on this site is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
