Which social media harm leads deserve consultation time
Your intake asks whether the harm involved a named platform, whether there's a diagnosis, treatment, or crisis intervention on record, and whether it started within the last two years — then collects screenshots, messages, or therapy records before the lead reaches your CRM.
The exact intake your social media harm litigation leads complete
This is the real 8-question guided intake for Social Media Harm Litigation — the same flow your customers finish before you ever pick up the phone.
What a qualified social media harm litigation lead should tell you
Claims alleging that use of a social media platform caused real psychological or physical harm to the claimant or their minor child, such as self-harm, eating disorders, depression, anxiety, or harassment-related injury requiring treatment.
- Harm Happen (Or Minor
- Harm Involve Social Media
- Suffer Real Injury Or
- Get Medical Or Mental
- Harm Start Or Get
- Identify Social Media Platform(S)
- Have Evidence Can Share,
- This Harm Lead Significant
The questions your team needs answered
Every social media harm litigation intake asks these — and why each one matters.
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Did the harm happen to you (or your minor child) in the United States? | US jurisdiction is close to a threshold requirement for most firms taking these claims, so a 'no' here should route the lead for review rather than an automatic consultation. |
| Did your harm involve a social media platform or app (for example, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, or X)? | Confirming the harm actually involved a social media platform separates this claim type from general personal injury or defamation matters your firm may not want under this practice area. |
| Did you suffer a real injury or serious harm that you can describe (such as self-harm, eating disorder, depression/anxiety needing treatment, harassment threats, or physical injury)? | This carries the highest weight in the catalog because a describable, serious injury is the foundation of any viable claim, not just general dissatisfaction with an app. |
| Did you get medical or mental health treatment, a diagnosis, or a crisis intervention because of this harm? | A documented diagnosis, treatment, or crisis intervention gives the claim a medical record to point to, which matters far more than a self-reported symptom alone. |
| Did the harm start or get much worse within the last 2 years? | Recency affects both the strength of the causal story and potential filing deadlines, so older or stagnant harm should be flagged for a deadline check before scheduling time. |
| Can you identify the social media platform(s) involved and the account(s), content, or messages that caused the harm? | Being able to name the platform, account, or specific content is what turns a vague complaint into something your team can actually investigate and potentially litigate. |
| Do you have evidence you can share, such as screenshots, links, messages, reports, or medical/therapy records? | Existing screenshots, messages, or records mean less time spent by your staff chasing down proof after the first conversation. |
| Did this harm lead to significant losses, such as medical bills, missed work/school, hospitalization, or major life disruption? | Documented losses like medical bills or missed school/work help establish damages beyond the harm itself, which matters for evaluating case value. |
How Cliont scores social media harm litigation leads
Every answer is weighted automatically — no manual review required.
Value signals
- Harm Happen (Or Minor: yes
- Harm Involve Social Media: yes
- Suffer Real Injury Or: yes
- Get Medical Or Mental: yes
- Harm Start Or Get: yes
- Identify Social Media Platform(S): yes
See the lead your team receives
Social Media Harm Litigation Lead
From first click to qualified lead
Follow people and businesses seeking counsel through one smooth, guided flow.
They land & meet you
Your video greeting plays instantly — a real face instead of a blank form.
They explain the matter
Smart questions adapt to their matter and capture the full scope.
They share the documents
The facts, dates, and any paperwork come attached, so you can assess the matter before the consultation.
You get a ready lead
Scored and qualified — waiting for you to win it.
Built for social media harm litigation workflows
| Cliont capability | Social Media Harm Litigation application |
|---|---|
| Guided video or text intake | Walks the caller through identifying the platform, account, or content involved before asking about diagnosis and treatment, so your team hears the specifics that make or break case fit. |
| Conditional question branching | Adjusts follow-up questions based on whether harm happened in the US and whether a diagnosis or crisis intervention occurred, avoiding wasted questions for leads that fall outside your intake criteria. |
| Weighted lead scoring | Applies heavier weight to documented diagnosis, treatment, and identifiable platform/content, so leads with real medical or evidentiary backing surface above vague harm claims. |
| Document and screenshot upload | Lets the caller attach screenshots, messages, or therapy records directly during intake instead of your staff chasing them down after the first call. |
| CRM routing with lead context | Sends the platform identified, diagnosis status, and harm timeline alongside the lead so your intake staff can triage without re-asking the caller's story. |
Common social media harm litigation lead scenarios
Recent diagnosis with documented evidence
A parent reports their teen developed a diagnosed eating disorder tied to a specific platform within the past two years, with therapy records and screenshots ready to share. This is the profile the intake is built to surface quickly.
Harm occurred outside the United States
A caller describes real harm from a platform, but the incident happened while living abroad. The intake flags this on the jurisdiction question so your team can decide fit before a consultation is scheduled.
Distress without treatment or diagnosis
Someone reports feeling anxious or upset after platform use but never sought treatment, a diagnosis, or crisis intervention. The intake still captures the account, but the lead scores lower without a documented medical link.
Old harm, no clear timeline
A caller describes harm that started more than two years ago and has not gotten materially worse since. The intake records this so your team can weigh it against filing deadlines before committing time.
Real harm, unidentifiable platform or account
The caller describes serious harm but can't name the specific platform, account, or content involved and has no evidence to share yet. The intake still logs the narrative but flags the missing identification for follow-up.
Connect Cliont to your workflow
Send leads
HubSpot, HighLevel, Salesforce, JobNimbus
Book matters
Google Calendar, Outlook Calendar, Calendly
Notify your team
Email, SMS, Slack
Automate follow-up
Zapier, Webhooks, API
Simple, transparent pricing
Choose the plan that works for your business.
Professional
Unlimited intake forms and leads for your growing business.
- Unlimited intake forms
- Custom video greetings
- AI-powered voice bot
- English + Spanish support
- Automatic lead scoring
- Digital estimates & e-signatures
- Photo, video & file upload
- Advanced analytics dashboard
Pay Per Lead
Only pay when you receive a qualified lead.
- Unlimited intake forms
- Custom video greetings
- AI-powered voice bot
- English + Spanish support
- Automatic lead scoring
- Digital estimates & e-signatures
- Photo, video & file upload
- Charged only for submitted leads
More personal injury intake templates
Social Media Harm Litigation lead-intake FAQs
How does the intake handle claims involving a minor child instead of the caller themselves?
The jurisdiction question is written to cover harm to the caller or their minor child, so a parent reporting on behalf of a child is captured the same way as a self-reporting adult and scored using the same weighting.
What happens if the caller can't name the specific platform or account involved?
That question carries meaningful weight in the scoring model, so a 'no' answer lowers the lead's score without disqualifying it outright, since your team may still want to review harm that's serious but under-documented.
Does the intake still capture leads who never got a diagnosis or treatment?
Yes — the treatment/diagnosis question is weighted heavily but answering 'no' doesn't remove the lead from your CRM, it just reflects that the harm may be harder to substantiate without a medical record.
How does timing affect the lead score for older incidents?
The intake asks whether the harm started or worsened within the last two years, and answering 'no' pulls the score down, giving your team an early signal to check filing deadlines before booking a consultation.
What if the caller has no screenshots, messages, or records yet?
The evidence question is one of several inputs, not a gatekeeper — a 'no' answer reduces the score slightly but the lead still reaches your CRM so your team can request documentation directly.
Can this intake be reused for other litigation-style personal injury matters like Roundup or talcum powder claims?
Each subservice, including Roundup Litigation and Talcum Powder Litigation, runs its own catalog with different fields and weights, so Social Media Harm Litigation intake stays specific to platform, diagnosis, and timing questions rather than a generic injury form.
Turn social media harm litigation visitors into qualified cases
Give every social media harm litigation visitor a guided intake instead of a dead contact form — and get a scored, qualified lead before you book a consultation.