On September 15, 2026, the New York State Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York State, is scheduled to hear arguments in Patterson v. Meta Platforms and related appeals.

The plaintiffs include survivors of the attack and family members of those whose lives were taken. They are represented in the social-media litigation by the Law Office of John V. Elmore, P.C., along with the Social Media Victims Law Center and other counsel involved in the broader litigation.

What is this case about?

In simple terms, the case asks an important question:
Can social media companies potentially be held legally responsible for the way they design their platforms when those design choices are alleged to contribute to addiction, radicalization and ultimately real-world harm?

The plaintiffs allege that social media companies intentionally developed features intended to maximize the amount of time users spend on their platforms and that those features can be particularly harmful to vulnerable young users.

Among the design features raised in the litigation are recommendation algorithms, autoplay, infinite scrolling, push notifications, insufficient age verification and parental controls, and other features that the plaintiffs allege can encourage compulsive use.

The plaintiffs allege that the shooter became increasingly isolated, addicted to online platforms and exposed to racist and violent material as he was drawn further into online spaces that contributed to his radicalization.

These allegations remain subject to the legal process and have not been established as findings of fact by New York's highest court.

Why is the case before the Court of Appeals?

The case has already traveled through multiple levels of New York's court system.

In 2024, Erie County Supreme Court declined to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against the social media companies, allowing the litigation to move forward.

The social media companies appealed that decision.

In 2025, New York's Appellate Division, Fourth Department, issued a divided **3–2 decision** reversing the lower court and dismissing the claims against the social media defendants.

The majority concluded that, even though the claims were presented as product-design claims, they were too closely connected to content created by third parties. The majority determined that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protected the companies from these claims.

Two judges dissented. They concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations concerned the companies' own design decisions — including features such as autoplay, infinite scrolling, push notifications, age verification and parental controls — and that the plaintiffs should be permitted to pursue their product-liability claims.

The plaintiffs appealed.

The matter will now be considered by the New York State Court of Appeals.

What will New York's highest court decide?

The Court of Appeals has identified several important legal questions, including:

* Whether social media platforms can be considered "products" under New York product-liability law.
* Whether Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act prevents these product-liability claims from proceeding.
* Whether the First Amendment prevents the claims.
* Whether the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a causal connection between the companies' actions and the harm that occurred.
* Whether the shooter's own criminal actions legally break that chain of responsibility.

The Court is not deciding whether the social media companies owe damages to the plaintiffs at this stage.
Instead, one of the fundamental questions is whether these types of claims can legally proceed.

A decision allowing the claims to move forward would therefore not mean that the plaintiffs have won their underlying lawsuits. It would allow the litigation against the social media companies to continue, where the allegations would be subjected to the further legal process.

Why could this matter beyond Buffalo?

Our society is still confronting difficult questions about how social media affects young people, how online radicalization occurs and what responsibilities technology companies have when designing platforms used by millions of people.

There is an important difference between holding a company responsible for what another person says online and asking whether a company should bear responsibility for how its own product is designed.

That distinction is at the center of this case.

A ruling that allows these claims to proceed could contribute to a larger legal framework for examining the responsibility of technology companies for their own design decisions.

Ultimately, greater accountability can encourage greater attention to safety.

If companies can potentially face legal consequences for harmful design choices, that can create stronger incentives to develop safeguards, particularly for young and vulnerable users. Those safeguards could include changes in how platforms recommend material, protections against compulsive use, stronger age-appropriate features, parental controls and other measures intended to reduce foreseeable harm.

No court decision can guarantee that another act of hate will never occur.

But prevention requires us to examine every part of the environment that can allow hate to grow.

What happened in Buffalo demonstrates the devastating consequences that can occur when racist ideology moves beyond words and becomes violence. If lessons learned through the tragedy of 5/14 can contribute to stronger protections that help interrupt another person's path toward radicalization and violence, those lessons can help protect communities far beyond our own.

### The courage behind the case

It is also important that we never lose sight of the people behind the legal arguments.

Court cases have names, docket numbers and legal briefs. Behind this case are real people who experienced an unimaginable act of violence.

For survivors and families, pursuing accountability can require repeatedly returning to facts and circumstances surrounding one of the most painful days of their lives.

We recognize the strength of the plaintiffs who have chosen to continue through this process.

We also recognize attorney **John V. Elmore and his firm**, along with the other attorneys working on behalf of those impacted by 5/14, as they bring these arguments before New York State's highest court.

We ask our community to keep the plaintiffs, their families and their legal teams in prayer as this important case moves forward.

From tragedy, through remembrance, into action.

The mission of the 5/14 Memorial Foundation is rooted in remembrance, healing, education and community advocacy.

Part of honoring the ten lives taken on May 14, 2022, is ensuring that what happened in Buffalo is never reduced to a moment in history.

We must learn from it.

We must educate others about the forces that allow racism and hate to grow.

We must advocate for safer communities.

And wherever possible, we must use what Buffalo has endured to help prevent another family or another community from experiencing the same tragedy.

The courage of survivors and families who continue to seek accountability is part of that work.

We stand with them as their voices are heard before New York State's highest court.