Platforms designed to hook children. A prosecutor’s approach to holding them accountable.
Parents across California are learning what internal company documents now confirm: social media platforms were engineered to maximize the time children spend on them, and the companies knew the cost. Endless scroll, autoplay, algorithmic feeds tuned to each child’s vulnerabilities, beauty filters, streaks, and notifications timed to pull kids back in. For many young users the result has been anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-harm, sleep deprivation, and, in the worst cases, exploitation by adults who used these platforms to reach them.
In 2026, juries started to agree. A Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable for negligent design in the first social media addiction case tried in the country, and that verdict has since been upheld by the trial judge. Thousands of families’ cases are pending in coordinated proceedings in California state court and in federal court in Oakland.
Wear Trial Law represents families whose children have been harmed by social media platforms. Michael Wear spent years as a Special Victims Unit prosecutor investigating and trying child exploitation cases and later led a Consumer Protection Department that held corporations accountable for deceptive practices. This litigation sits at the intersection of both.
The Harms These Cases Address
Wear Trial Law evaluates cases involving minors who suffered serious harm connected to social media use, including:
- Compulsive use and addiction diagnosed or treated by a medical or mental health professional
- Depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation connected to platform use
- Eating disorders and body dysmorphia fueled by appearance-based content and filters
- Self-harm encouraged or normalized by content the platform served
- Sexual exploitation, sextortion, and grooming by adults who used the platform to contact a child
- Dangerous viral challenges resulting in injury or death
- Wrongful death of a minor connected to any of the above
The platforms most often involved are Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube. Claims have also been brought against gaming platforms and, increasingly, against AI chatbot companies whose products formed harmful relationships with minors.
Why These Cases Are Now Viable
For years, social media companies argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded them from any lawsuit. Courts in both the California coordinated proceeding and the federal multidistrict litigation have now rejected that argument as applied to the platforms’ own design choices. A company cannot be sued for what a user posts, but it can be sued for building a product it knew was harmful to children and failing to warn parents.
The claims are product liability and negligence claims, the same kind brought against manufacturers of defective cars or dangerous drugs. Internal research, whistleblower disclosures, and state attorney general investigations have produced substantial evidence that the companies understood the risks to young users and designed around engagement anyway.
How Michael Wear Approaches These Cases
Investigating crimes against children was his job. As a Special Victims Unit trial attorney, Michael prosecuted child molestation and child exploitation cases, including cases in which offenders used online platforms to reach victims. He knows how digital evidence is preserved and presented, how to interview a child witness, and how trauma affects a young person’s ability to tell their story.
Holding corporations accountable was also his job. As head of the Consumer Protection Department, Michael brought enforcement actions against large companies for deceptive and unfair business practices. He understands how corporations defend themselves, how they manage documents, and how to build a case against an institution with unlimited resources.
One lawyer, your family’s lawyer. Cases involving a child’s mental health are intensely personal. Michael handles each one himself, works closely with the family, and coordinates with the treating clinicians. Where a case belongs in one of the coordinated proceedings, he works alongside the firms leading that litigation while remaining your direct point of contact.
What Families Should Do Now
Preserve evidence. Do not delete your child’s accounts, devices, or message history, even if it is painful to keep. Account data, screen-time records, and message logs are central evidence. Michael can advise on how to preserve data properly.
Gather medical and school records. Treatment records, therapy notes, diagnoses, hospitalizations, and school reports documenting changes in behavior or performance establish both the harm and its timing.
Write down the timeline. When did your child first get each account? How old were they? When did you first notice changes? What did you try, and how did the platform respond?
Talk to a lawyer before talking to the platform. Reports made through in-app tools are useful, but communications with the company should be made with an understanding of how they may be used later.
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ
Yes. A parent or guardian can bring the claim on the child’s behalf. Any settlement for a minor is reviewed and approved by a court to protect the child’s interests.
Often not. California generally pauses the statute of limitations while a person is a minor, so the clock in many cases does not start until age 18. The K.G.M. verdict involved a plaintiff who began using platforms as a young child and sued as a young adult. Do not assume the deadline has passed; contact Michael and he will evaluate your timeline.
These cases are handled on a contingency fee. You pay no attorney’s fee unless there is a recovery, and how case costs are handled is explained in writing before you sign anything. The consultation is free and confidential.
The court proceedings in these cases have used initials rather than names to protect minor plaintiffs, and there are procedures to protect a child’s privacy. Whether a child would ever need to testify depends on how the case proceeds; most resolve before trial. Michael will discuss this with you candidly before anything is filed.
Potentially yes. Claims may exist against the platform for design features that facilitated the contact, such as inadequate age verification or algorithmic recommendation of adult accounts to minors, in addition to claims against the individual. These cases require careful evaluation, and Michael’s prosecution background is directly relevant.
Yes. Cases involving AI companion and chatbot products that formed harmful relationships with minors, including cases involving self-harm and suicide, are an emerging area, and California has enacted statutory protections for minors using these products. If your child was harmed by an AI product, contact Michael.
Was Your Child Harmed? Talk to Michael.
Speak directly with Michael Wear in a free, confidential consultation. He will listen, explain what a case might look like, and help you understand your family's options.
Request a Consultation