Meta pulled law firms' ads recruiting social-media-addiction clients

In April 2026, Meta confirmed it had removed adverts placed by law firms on its platforms to recruit clients for future lawsuits related to social media addiction. Companies such as Morgan & Morgan and Sokolove Law saw 'dozens' of their adverts deactivated, according to Axios; the ads ran on Facebook and Instagram, some also appearing on Threads and Meta's Audience Network. Meta's statement: 'We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful.'

The move came straight after two adverse verdicts. In March 2026, a New Mexico court ordered Meta to pay $375m for misleading users over the safety of its platforms for children, after a jury found its platforms had endangered children and exposed them to sexually explicit material and predators. And in the California social-media-addiction case, a young woman was awarded $6m over her childhood addiction — Meta expected to pay 70%, Google 30%, with Snap and TikTok having reached undisclosed settlements.

Emily Jeffcott, an attorney for Morgan & Morgan, called the removals 'another example of Meta trying to control the narrative and avoid accountability', saying the resources would be better spent on tools to reduce problematic use and detect under-13 users, and that 'blocking the ads doesn't make the harms go away. It just makes it harder on victims.' As of the Friday after, several of the adverts still appeared active in Meta's Ad Library — which reserves Meta's right to remove ads 'contrary to our competitive position, interests or advertising philosophy'.

No fine — but accusations of 'trying to control the narrative and avoid accountability', and several targeted ads still live in Meta's own Ad Library.

The ads were not harmful to users — they were harmful to Meta's legal position, which is not what an advertising policy is for.

Enforcement was inconsistent: after announcing the removals, several recruiting ads still appeared in Meta's own Ad Library.

Coming straight off adverse verdicts, the move read as retaliation against the litigation itself, handing the firms a larger platform.

Moderating content that threatens your own legal position makes the platform the story — and enforcement that misses half the ads makes it worse.

Morgan & Morgan said blocking the ads 'doesn't make the harms go away. It just makes it harder on victims'; several of the adverts remained visible in Meta's Ad Library when the BBC checked.