Daphne Campbell v. Monte Carlo Condominium Association, AKAM On-Site Inc., and EMS Protective Group

The landmark $100 million jury verdict in Campbell v. Monte Carlo Condominium wrongful death lawsuit emphasizes that the court takes corporate responsibility in property management and security seriously. The plaintiffs in the case showed that multiple responsible entities failed to protect residents from a foreseeable tragedy.

Case: Daphne Campbell v. Monte Carlo Condominium Association, AKAM On-Site Inc., and EMS Protective Group

Court: Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Florida

Case No.: 2022-001193-CA-01

The Plaintiff: Estate of Jason Campbell (Led by Daphne Campbell)

After the 2021 fatal shooting of her son, Jason Campbell, Daphne Campbell filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the Monte Carlo Condominium Association, its management company, AKAM On-Site Inc., and the EMS Protective Group security firm failed to maintain adequate security and allowed a known threat to enter the property. The plaintiffs claimed that the act of violence that took Campbell's life could have been prevented so when they filed the wrongful death lawsuit seeking damages; they also sought accountability. The plaintiffs' argument insisted that property management and security protocol negligence directly contributed to Campbell's death.

The Defendants: Monte Carlo Condominium Association, AKAM On-Site Inc., and EMS Protective Group

Three key "groups" or entities were listed as defendants in the case based on the plaintiffs' belief that between them they held the responsibility for property safety and management:

1. Monte Carlo Condominium Association, which oversaw the premises;

2. AKAM On-Site Inc., the property management firm responsible for operational safety and building access; and

3. EMS Protective Group, the contracted security provider.

According to the complaint, each entity had prior notice of safety concerns and failed to take meaningful action. According to the plaintiffs, the companies allegedly ignored the reports of unauthorized entry and failed to warn their residents of potential danger, even after the shooter had previously entered the premises armed.

A History of the Case: From Tragedy to Verdict

The tragedy occurred when Lakoria Washington, reportedly the ex-boyfriend of Jason Campbell’s girlfriend, entered the Monte Carlo Condominium complex armed and opened fire. Washington had previously been involved in an incident at the property and was known to security and management.

Despite these warning signs, access control and surveillance systems were reportedly inadequate. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ collective failure to implement appropriate security measures created an unsafe environment and directly led to Jason Campbell’s death.

After a full trial, a Miami-Dade County jury awarded $100 million to the Campbell family. The verdict assigned liability as follows:

• 57% to AKAM On-Site Inc. (property manager)

• 18% to the Monte Carlo Condominium Association

• 18% to EMS Protective Group (security firm)

• 7% to the tenant who allowed the shooter access

The jury found that the defendants’ negligence made the shooting foreseeable and that they breached their duty to provide adequate protection for residents and guests. The award will be distributed among Jason Campbell’s surviving parents and children.

Main Question: Was the Shooting a Foreseeable Event?

At the heart of the case was a critical legal question: can a property owner or manager be held liable when a third-party criminal act leads to death on the premises?

The jury determined that, in this case, the answer was yes. Based on the evidence in the case, the shooter entered the property without authorization on a prior occasion, site management knew (or should have known) of ongoing threats, and no meaningful action was taken to address those risks by any of the defendants. The verdict reaffirmed that foreseeability and negligence in maintaining safe premises can lead to liability even when the harm originates from a criminal act by a third party.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Residents?

Although this case unfolded in Florida, its implications reach much further. California's property owners and management companies are held to a legal duty to offer reasonable security for their tenants, employees, and guests. "Offering reasonable security" includes:

• Addressing known threats

• Securing access points

• Taking steps to prevent foreseeable violence

California courts have consistently held that failing to provide adequate security (especially if there are prior incidents) can lead to premises liability and wrongful death liability. The Campbell case serves as a powerful reminder to California landlords, HOAs, and employers alike that safety should never be an afterthought.

FAQ: Premises Liability and Wrongful Death Cases

Q: What legal claim did the Campbell family bring?

A: The family filed a wrongful death and premises liability lawsuit, alleging that the property owner, manager, and security provider failed to maintain a safe environment and ignored prior warnings about the shooter.

Q: How did the jury assign fault among the defendants?

A: The property manager, AKAM On-Site Inc., was found primarily responsible, with 57% of the fault. The condominium association and security company were each assigned 18%, while 7% of fault was attributed to the specific tenant who granted access to the shooter.

Q: Can a California owner be held liable for a third-party crime on their property?

A: Yes. In California, a property owner or property manager can be held liable if a criminal act committed on their property is foreseeable and they failed to take reasonable preventive measures. Some examples include failing to maintain locks or gate latches, ignoring security complaints, or failing to hire appropriate security.

If you’ve lost a loved one due to negligent security or unsafe property conditions, the experienced wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. Contact our office today to discuss your case and learn more about your rights under California law.

The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

The wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of David Loree against TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc. became one of the most striking examples of how a jury can respond when a company’s safety failures lead to devastating consequences.

Case: The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

Court: District Court of Harris County, Texas

Case No.: 021-68047, followed by Appeal No. 14-25-00776-CV

The Plaintiff, Estate of David Loree, Represented by Loree's Widow:

The plaintiff is represented by David Loree’s widow, Milena Loree, along with their children Zackary, Cody, and Mary. The family brought the wrongful death lawsuit individually and on behalf of the estate of the late David Loree after Loree lost his life in a catastrophic incident involving heavy construction equipment operated by TNT Crane & Rigging. The family alleged that TNT’s systemic disregard for safety protocols directly caused his death.

The case centered on claims of gross negligence—asserting that TNT Crane & Rigging failed to maintain a safe work environment, properly inspect and operate its cranes, and adequately train personnel to prevent foreseeable accidents.

The Defendant: TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc. is a nationwide crane and heavy lifting services operation based out of Texas. According to the original court documents, TNT's initial response to the plaintiff's claims was to deny liability for the incident, indicating that the company's actions exhibited reasonable care and compliance with safety standards. During the early stages of litigation, the defendant argued that there were other factors (including the decedent's actions) that may have contributed. In response, the plaintiffs' counsel provided the court with extensive evidence of repeated safety lapses, warnings the company disregarded, and corporate practices that clearly prioritized productivity rather than safety.

From Trial to Settlement: A History of the Wrongful Death Case

After almost four weeks of trial, the jury found the company liable in the wrongful death of David Loree. The jury found the company's negligence egregious and warranting damages (both compensatory and punitive). The jury awarded the Loree Estate (plaintiff) with $640 million, including $480 million in punitive damages, which is a staggering figure meant to punish and deter similar conduct.

The jury’s finding of gross negligence was particularly significant. The jury's finding required the higher “clear and convincing” standard of proof that demonstrated that the defendant's actions reflected a conscious disregard for the safety of workers. Equally important, jurors rejected the defense’s attempt to assign blame to Mr. Loree.

In September 2025, both parties filed a joint motion to abate the appeal after reaching a settlement agreement. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and later, on October 30, 2025, issued an order vacating the trial court’s judgment and remanding the case for entry of judgment consistent with the settlement. The appellate order did not alter the jury’s findings on negligence—it simply reflected the parties’ agreement to finalize the matter privately.

The Main Question Being Considered: Corporate Negligence and Accountability

At its core, The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc. asked whether a major industrial employer could be held fully accountable for systemic safety failures that result in loss of life. The jury’s verdict answered that question decisively—yes, when gross negligence is proven, corporations can and should be held responsible.

While the settlement ultimately resolved the case, the message resonated beyond the courtroom: strong corporate safety programs are not optional. They are essential to protecting workers’ lives.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Workers?

Although the case originated in Texas, its lessons are universal. Workers in California (especially those in high-risk industries such as construction, transportation, and manufacturing) face similar dangers when employers cut corners on safety.

California law, through agencies such as Cal/OSHA and the Labor Code, provides powerful protections for employees and their families. However, corporate negligence still leads to preventable deaths and injuries each year. This case highlights how vigilant legal action can expose systemic failures, drive industry reform, and bring a measure of justice to grieving families.

FAQ: The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

Q: What laws or legal principles were central to the Loree case?

A: The Loree v. TNT lawsuit centered on wrongful death and gross negligence claims. The jury applied the “clear and convincing evidence” standard required to award punitive damages; mirroring the heightened standards for proving egregious misconduct in California's civil lawsuits.

Q: What Are Punitive Damages?

A: Punitive awards are intended to punish particularly reckless or malicious conduct.

Q: Is it significant when punitive damages are awarded in a wrongful death case?

A: When a jury awards punitive damages in a wrongful death case, it indicates that they felt the details of the case warranted a more excessive deterrent; in addition to ordinary compensation.

If you’ve lost a loved one due to corporate negligence or unsafe workplace conditions, the compassionate wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help you seek justice at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. Contact our office to discuss your situation, and learn how to file a wrongful death lawsuit today.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit filed After a Woman is Killed on Santa Monica Beach

After their daughter was killed by an allegedly reckless driver on a Santa Monica beach, Sherese Allen's parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

Case: Eugenia Tate and Antron Allen v. The City of Santa Monica, Yuyang Sun, Liang Tang, Jie Ding

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25SMCV03861

The Plaintiffs: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The plaintiffs, Eugenia Tate and Antron Allen, are the parents of the late Sherese Allen, who lost her life in a fatal beach accident on October 17, 2024. According to the complaint, Sherese was resting on the sand at Santa Monica Beach when a driver entered the beach area and began recklessly operating a vehicle in circular motions at high speed. The vehicle struck Allen, trapping her underneath and causing fatal injuries. Her parents allege that the City of Santa Monica’s negligence and failure to maintain safe conditions were a direct cause of their daughter’s death.

The Defendants: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The lawsuit names the City of Santa Monica and individuals Yuyang Sun, Liang Tang, and Jie Ding as defendants. The complaint asserts that the driver and associated parties acted negligently, causing Allen’s death, and that the City created and maintained a dangerous condition by failing to prevent vehicles from accessing the beach. According to the lawsuit, the City had control over the beach area and was aware of prior incidents where vehicles had entered and caused injuries or fatalities. Despite this knowledge, the City allegedly failed to install barriers, signage, or enforcement measures to prevent similar tragedies from occurring.

A History of the Case: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The plaintiffs first filed a government claim in March 2025, which is the required preliminary step before suing a public entity in California. After the claim process was concluded, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaint seeks damages for wrongful death, negligence, and the creation of dangerous conditions on public property. The plaintiffs seek compensation for loss of companionship, mental anguish, and the emotional devastation of losing their daughter, as well as punitive damages to hold the responsible parties accountable.

The Main Question Being Considered: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The central question before the court is whether the City of Santa Monica bears legal responsibility for failing to safeguard the public by allowing vehicles to access the beach area. The court will examine whether the City’s alleged inaction (despite prior similar incidents) constitutes the creation of a dangerous condition under California Government Code § 835, and whether that negligence directly contributed to Allen’s death.

FAQ: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

Q: What happened to Sherese Allen?

A: On October 17, 2024, Sherese Allen was resting on Santa Monica Beach when a vehicle drove onto the sand, and struck her,. The incident allegedly resulted in her death.

Q: Who filed this wrongful death lawsuit?

A: The lawsuit was filed by the parents of the woman who was hit byt he vehicle, Eugenia Tate and Antron Allen.

Q: What are the allegations against the Defendant?

A: The plaintiffs allege that the City failed to prevent vehicles from entering the beach despite knowing it was a recurring danger. By doing so, the plaintiffs argue they created a hazardous condition on public property.

Q: What damages are being sought?

A: The lawsuit seeks compensation for wrongful death, mental anguish, and loss of companionship. The lawsuit also seeks punitive damages.

If you have questions about wrongful death claims, negligence, or public entity liability in California, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Family Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit in Response to Bar Employee's Death

In 2025, the widow of a Texas bar employee filed a wrongful death lawsuit after her husband was killed outside his workplace. The lawsuit alleges that Oak Texas Bar and Grill, LLC, and one of its patrons, John Anthony Saenz, are responsible for the preventable death of employee Juan Nava Hernandez, who was fatally struck in the bar’s parking lot by an intoxicated driver who had just been over-served alcohol inside the establishment.

Case: Cynthia Rodriguez, Individually and as Surviving Spouse of Juan Nava Hernandez, Deceased v. John Anthony Saenz and Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

Court: Hidalgo County District Court (Texas)

Case No.: C-3997-25-1

The Plaintiff in the Case is Cynthia Rodriguez

Cynthia Rodriguez, the surviving spouse of Juan Nava Hernandez, filed the wrongful death lawsuit individually and on behalf of her late husband’s estate. According to the complaint, on August 1, 2025, Hernandez was performing his job duties—taking out the trash behind the bar—when he was struck and killed by John Anthony Saenz, a customer who had just been served alcohol at Oak Texas Bar and Grill despite being visibly intoxicated. The lawsuit alleges that the bar’s decision to continue serving Saenz alcohol in violation of Texas law directly led to Hernandez’s death. Rodriguez seeks justice for her late husband and compensation for the emotional and financial devastation his loss caused.

The Defendant: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

Oak Texas Bar and Grill, LLC, along with patron John Anthony Saenz, is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The complaint accuses the bar of negligence and gross negligence for overserving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual who later caused the death of one of its own employees. According to case documentation there is incriminating video evidence that shows Saenz driving recklessly through the parking, striking Hernandez, and fatally pinning him against a cinderblock wall. The plaintiffs in the case argue tht the bar failed to protect its employee from foreseeable harm, and that their failure resulted in a fatal tragedy.

A History of the Case: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

The wrongful death complaint was filed in August 2025 in the Hidalgo County District Court. The case seeks monetary relief in excess of $1 million for wrongful death, negligence, gross negligence, and survival claims. Rodriguez seeks damages for loss of financial support, loss of companionship, mental anguish, funeral and burial expenses, and exemplary damages intended to punish and deter similar misconduct. The case remains pending.

The Main Question Being Considered: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

The central question before the court is whether Oak Texas Bar and Grill acted negligently and unlawfully by serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated customer who later caused the death of an employee.

FAQ: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

Q: What happened in the Oak Texas Bar & Grill wrongful death case?

A: The lawsuit alleges that employee Juan Nava Hernandez was fatally struck by a drunk patron who had just been over-served alcohol at the bar, despite being visibly intoxicated.

Q: Who filed the lawsuit?

A: The lawsuit was filed by Cynthia Rodriguez, the surviving spouse of Hernandez, on behalf of herself and her late husband’s estate.

Q: What are the allegations against the bar?

A: The complaint alleges negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Texas liquor laws for serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual who later caused a fatal accident.

Q: What damages are being sought?

A: Rodriguez seeks damages exceeding $1 million for loss of financial

If you need help filing a wrongful death lawsuit, please reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California wrongful death attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Lord v. Renner: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed After Teen's Beating at Arizona Party

The parents of 16-year-old Preston Lord have filed a wrongful death lawsuit following his fatal beating at a large, unsupervised Halloween party in Queen Creek, Arizona. This case stands out from the criminal cases the young defendants are already facing because the civil suit intends to hold both the young defendants and numerous "parents" legally responsible for the circumstances leading to Preston's death.

Case: Lord v. Renner

Court: Maricopa County Superior Court

Case No.: CV2024-018033

The Plaintiff: Lord v. Renner

The plaintiffs in the case are Preston Lord's parents, Nicholoas Lord and Autumn Curiel. After their son died from injuries sustained at a Helloween party on the night of October 28, 2023, the two filed suit claiming wrongful death. The night of the incident, a fight allegedly broke out, and a severe beating left Preston unconscious. He was rushed to a nearby hospital and then airlifted to Phoenix Children's Hospital. However, he died due to injuries sustained just two days after the incident.

The Defendants in the Case: The Youths and Their Parents

Seven young party attendees are listed as defendants on the wrongful death complaint: Talan Renner, Treston Billey, William Owen Hines, Jacob Meisner, Dominic Turner, Taylor Sherman, and Talyn Vigil. However, the list of defendants does not stop there. In addition to the youths accused of the fatal attack on Preston Lord, some of the parents of the young people are also included on the defendant list. The Renner family and the owners of the property where the party was hosted (Roberto and Emily Corres) are also listed as defendants.

History of the Case: Lord v. Renner

According to the complaint, the Correas hosted a Halloween party promoted on Snapchat as a "Halloween Rager" that was open invite, with alcohol available on a first-come, first-served basis. Up to 200 teens and young adults reportedly attended. The lawsuit alleges the Correas remained inside during the party, were under the influence of alcohol, and failed to supervise the minors or prevent alcohol from being provided to them.

When the homeowners told attendees to leave, a fight broke out between two groups. Preston was allegedly beaten to the point of unconsciousness by the seven named individuals. The lawsuit also cites prior alleged violent behavior by defendant Talan Renner, including a fifth-grade threat to "shoot up" his school, a middle school fight/bullying incident, and an assault at a Utah boarding school. The plaintiffs argue that Renner's parents failed to take reasonable steps to control or supervise their son despite his volatile history.

The Main Question in the Case: Lord v. Renner

Can both the individuals who physically attacked Preston and the parents who allegedly failed to supervise or intervene be held liable under wrongful death and negligence laws? The fatal incident that led to Lord v. Renner occurred in Arizona. However, the issues raised of parental liability, negligent supervision, and social host responsibility are issues that could easily be echoed in wrongful death and negligence claims in other areas throughout the nation.

Why This Case Matters: Lord v. Renner

This case puts a spotlight on the potential civil liability for parents and property owners when minors at unsupervised gatherings where alcohol is present cause harm or injury. The issues presented in this case also underscore how wrongful death and negligence claims can extend beyond the direct perpetrators to those who allowed dangerous conditions to occur. Such cases can result in significant financial judgments intended to provide justice for grieving families.

FAQ: Lord v. Renner

Q: What is a wrongful death lawsuit?

A: A wrongful death lawsuit is a civil claim filed by certain surviving family members when a death is caused by another party's negligence, recklessness, or intentional act.

Q: Can parents be held liable for their child's actions?

A: Yes. In California, as in Arizona, parents may be held civilly responsible if they knew or should have known of their child's dangerous behavior and did not take reasonable actions to stop them from doing harm.

Q: How does social host liability apply?

A: California's social host laws differ from Arizona's, but in both states, providing alcohol to minors — or failing to control a gathering where minors drink — can contribute to civil liability when injuries or deaths occur.

Q: How does a civil wrongful death case differ from a criminal case?

A: A criminal case seeks to punish wrongdoing with penalties such as imprisonment. A civil wrongful death case seeks compensation for losses filed by surviving family members.

Q: What damages can be recovered in wrongful death cases?

A: Compensation can include funeral expenses, medical bills, and other damages related to loss of companionship, loss of future earnings, etc. In some cases, punitive damages may be included, especially for reckless conduct.

If you have lost a loved one due to another party's negligence or wrongful actions, contact an experienced wrongful death attorney as soon as possible. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you, with offices serving clients in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Claims Big Oil is to Blame for Climate Related Heatwave Death

Misti Leon made a historic move when she filed a wrongful death lawsuit targeting major fossil fuel companies. Leon's complaint alleges that the companies' actions and active climate deception directly contributed to her mother's death during a record-breaking 2021 heat dome in the Pacific Northwest. Leon's case marks a new frontier in climate accountability litigation.

Case: Misti Leon v. ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and the BP-managed subsidiary Olympic Pipeline Company

Court: King County Superior Court

Case No.: 25-2-15986-8 SEA

The Plaintiff: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Misti Leon, acting as the personal representative of her mother's estate, filed this wrongful death suit following the 2021 Pacific Northwest "heat dome"—an extreme weather event scientists confirm would have been virtually impossible without human-induced climate change.

The Defendant: Leon v. ExxonMobil

The lawsuit names seven major fossil fuel companies—ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and BP's Olympic Pipeline Company—alleging that their decades-long contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and public deception about climate risk played a direct role in her mother's fatal hyperthermia.

History of the Case: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Filed on May 29, 2025, in King County Superior Court, the suit is unprecedented—marking the first wrongful death claim in the U.S. directly linking a single death to corporate actions exacerbating the climate crisis. The complaint alleges that the 108 °F heat in Seattle that killed Juliana Leon constituted a foreseeable consequence of the defendants' knowingly deceptive actions.

The Main Question in the Case: Leon v. ExxonMobil

The central legal question is whether these fossil fuel companies can be held civilly liable under state wrongful death, public nuisance, or failure-to-warn claims for creating and hiding the dangers of climate change that caused the fatal heatwave.

FAQ: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Q: Is this the first wrongful death lawsuit connected to climate change?

A: Yes—it is the first known U.S. wrongful death claim against fossil fuel companies directly attributing one individual's death to the industry's climate impact.

Q: What are the plaintiff's main legal claims against the defendants?

A: The plaintiff's main allegations in the case are wrongdul death, public nuisance, and failure to warn. Leon alleges that the companies knew of deadly climate risks, but misled consumers regardig the issues and hindered efforts to mitigate.

Q: Does the case rely on scientific attribution of the heatwave to climate change?

A: Yes. Scientific studies cited in the complaint support the claim that the June 2021 heat dome, which reached record temperatures, would have been virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Parents Claim Addictive Algorithms Caused Their Child's Death: Nazario v. ByteDance

A New York Supreme Court complaint (Index No. 151540/2024) accuses TikTok's parent, ByteDance, and related social-media firms of designing "addictive" features that target minors, promote dangerous challenges, and allegedly caused a boy's death.

The Case: Norma Nazario v. ByteDance Ltd. et al.

The Court: NY Supreme Court

The Case No. 151540/2024

The Plaintiff: Nazario v. ByteDance

Norma Nazario, individually and as representative of her late child Zackery's estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit contending that the platforms exploited children's neuro-vulnerabilities, lured Zackery into compulsive use, and pushed self-harm content that led directly to his fatal actions.

The Defendant: Nazario v. ByteDance

According to the complaint, the defendant, ByteDance (and other affiliated social media platforms/apps):

• Optimize apps for "retention" and "time spent," while valuing engagement over safety.

• Actively nudge minors to create content or "go live" with content.

• Algorithmically amplify dangerous challenges while withholding adequate warnings.

The Case: Nazario v. ByteDance

The case was put before the New York Supreme Court and listed multiple allegations:

• Defendants deliberately leverage the neuro-developmental vulnerabilities of minor users to "optimize" time spent and retention results.

• Algorithms pushed the plaintiff's son, Zackery, toward "exceedingly dangerous challenges and videos," which directly caused the child's fatal actions.

• Defendants knew their products were addictive, failed to redesign or provide adequate warnings, and even "co-created" content through prompts, music curation, and "go live" nudges.

The Main Question: Nazario v. ByteDance

Did ByteDance's product designs, recommendation algorithms, and failure to warn or safeguard young users create a defective, deceptively marketed product that caused Zackery's death—and, if so, what liability attaches under New York tort and consumer-protection law?

FAQ: Nazario v. ByteDance

Q: What makes the suit a product liability case rather than simple negligence?

A: The complaint frames TikTok as a consumer product with design defects (addictive features, dangerous content amplification) and inadequate warnings, invoking strict liability principles normally applied to physical goods.

Q: How do deceptive-practice claims (GBL §§ 349 & 350) fit in?

A: Nazario says defendants misrepresented TikTok's safety, luring families to trust a platform allegedly engineered to maximize engagement at the expense of minors' mental and physical health.

Q: What "dangerous challenges" are cited?

A: While specific titles are under seal, the pleading says the For You Page pushed viral stunts encouraging self-harm and risky behavior that Zackery ultimately attempted.

Q: Could Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shield the defendants?

A: Plaintiffs argue the platforms acted as designers and co-creators of content through algorithmic amplification, prompts, and curated music, placing their claims within the product-liability sphere where Section 230 immunity is narrower.

Q: What happens next procedurally?

A: The court will rule on the pending motion (MS #3). If claims survive, discovery will address internal design documents, safety studies, and data on under-18 engagement, potentially informing settlement or trial.

If you need to file a wrongful death lawsuit, and you have questions, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.