An independent, methodologically rigorous assessment of the behavioral and neurocognitive evidence behind social-media harm claims — for the litigation funders, insurers, and counsel pricing risk in MDL 3047 and the cases that follow.
The question has shifted. The fight is no longer whether platforms can be sued.
Recent design-defect verdicts and settlements proved that these claims survive Section 230 and reach juries. With federal bellwethers in MDL 3047 underway, the open question is whether the scientific causation behind a given claim can withstand a coordinated, well-funded defense. That is an evidence question — and it is the one we answer.
A design-defect claim cleared Section 230 and reached a jury — and a damages award.
A school-district settlement signaled the institutional plaintiff wave now forming behind the personal-injury docket.
Courts in MDL 3047 let product-design claims proceed past the Section 230 shield, opening the causation fight.
Anchor facts tracked from the live dockets. Dates and figures verified against primary filings on engagement.
Plaintiffs anchor causation in attention, working memory, sleep disruption, and compulsive-use pathways. The defense has a disciplined counter-playbook — and a funder, carrier, or trial team that cannot independently weigh both sides is pricing risk on someone else's say-so.
"Social-media addiction" is absent from the DSM-5 — so the behavior is habit, not pathology.
Pre-existing adverse experiences and off-platform factors — not the product — explain the injury.
Large population studies put social media at roughly 0.4% of the variance in adolescent well-being — framed by the defense as moral panic.
We weigh these arguments — vector by vector, at the certainty the evidence actually supports.
A 25- to 40-page evaluation of the underlying psychiatric epidemiology and neurocognitive science, graded for certainty, delivered within four weeks of engagement.
Each Assessment grades six harm vectors one at a time: depression, anxiety, sleep disruption, attention and working memory, body image and eating pathology, and self-harm and suicidality. For each, we report a GRADE-informed certainty level and a plain account of where the evidence holds and where it breaks.
We do not flatter the science. In this litigation, most vectors currently grade Low to Very low, and the Assessment says so, one vector at a time. Full gradings are matter-specific and delivered in the engagement, not posted here.
Vector-by-vector grading — depression, anxiety, sleep, attention & working memory, body image & eating pathology, self-harm — each rated for evidentiary strength and certainty, with where it holds and where it is contestable.
The sleep-displacement and arousal mechanisms, the strength of the mediation evidence, and — stated plainly — its limits.
The current peer-reviewed synthesis on short-form-video delivery mechanics and cognition — reported at the magnitude and certainty the source authors actually assign.
A neutral map of how each harm vector is attacked and defended — DSM ambiguity, confounds, effect-size disputes, proxy-metric limitations. Equally useful to a funder assessing merit and a team anticipating the fight.
Delivered as a PDF with a one-page executive summary and a fully sourced appendix. Four weeks from engagement.
The independent Assessment, available to any party — and confidential consulting support for counsel, conflict-checked and limited to one side per matter.
Engagements are non-testifying. When retained through counsel, the work is generally protected as consulting work product. Independence is preserved by declining matter-specific work for opposing parties in the same case.
A limited number of charter engagements — two or three — are offered at $5,000 to establish the first named results. Standard engagements are quoted by matter. Four-week turnaround. A 50% retainer initiates the build.
Ebster et al. (2026), a systematic review in European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (42 studies, N = 46,912), found heavy short-form-video use consistently associated with poorer attention, working memory, and self-regulation, with effects ranging from small to moderate-to-large. The authors graded the evidence low to very-low certainty and described it as predominantly cross-sectional, China-weighted, self-reported, and provisional rather than causal.
For a pooled quantitative estimate, the companion meta-analysis is Nguyen et al. (2025), Psychological Bulletin — read in primary form before it appears in any assessment.
A redacted one-page excerpt and the current evidence brief are made available to qualified parties on request — ask in the scope memo.
Every study named on this site — and in every assessment — is read in primary form and calibrated to what that source actually concludes.
In this market, one inflated citation is disqualifying. The standard is the product.
An independent, methodologically rigorous assessment of the behavioral and neurocognitive evidence behind social-media harm claims. It is a 25–40 page report that grades the underlying science for certainty using GRADE, delivered within four weeks of engagement.
Litigation funders, insurers, and counsel who need to independently weigh the scientific causation behind platform-harm claims in MDL 3047 and related state actions before pricing risk.
GRADE is the standard framework used in evidence-based medicine and Cochrane reviews to rate how much confidence a body of evidence deserves, from High to Very low. Each harm vector in the Assessment is graded using GRADE — including where the evidence is weak.
Six vectors, one at a time: depression, anxiety, sleep disruption, attention and working memory, body image and eating pathology, and self-harm and suicidality.
Shawn Fraine, MA — a behavioral scientist and peer-reviewed meta-analyst, co-author of a meta-analysis in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, with a background in psychometric instrument design and research operations in the Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.
The Assessment is independent, non-testifying, and conflict-checked. A limited number of charter engagements — two or three — are offered at $5,000 to establish the first named results; standard engagements are quoted by matter. Turnaround is four weeks, with a 50% retainer to initiate the build.
All inquiries are treated confidentially. NDA on request. No phone wall, no calendar gimmicks — a clean note is enough to begin.
Your note is in confidence. You will receive the scope memo and a proposed time for a consultation, typically within one business day.