Qualified claimant leads for platform-harm litigation.
Attorney-operated. Published qualification specs. Documented consent on every lead.
Active torts
MDL 3166, N.D. Cal.
As of March 2026
Roblox / Child Exploitation
Approximately 170 pending federal actions. Co-lead counsel appointed January 30, 2026; plaintiffs’ executive committee seated February 17, 2026. A settlement master was appointed in April 2026. Firms typically build inventory hardest ahead of a resolution, not after.
View qualification specification →JCCP No. 5363, Los Angeles Superior Court
As of March 2026
Gaming Disorder
Federal consolidation was petitioned as MDL 3168 and denied in December 2025. JCCP No. 5363 is now the primary venue: 100+ coordinated cases against Roblox, Epic, Microsoft, Mojang, Activision Blizzard, and Nintendo. A bellwether trial is expected to be set in 2027.
The parallel social media JCCP, coordinated in the same Los Angeles courthouse, returned a $6 million plaintiff verdict in March 2026.
Leads are segmentable by state of residence. California residency is flagged at intake and priced separately, given that venue for this tort is now California state court.
View qualification specification →Under evaluation, not yet built out: social media addiction (MDL 3047) and AI harm litigation.
Roblox / Child Exploitation — qualification specification
| # | Criterion |
|---|---|
| 1 | Child was under 18 at the time of contact |
| 2 | Verifiable Roblox account — username captured, account history where available |
| 3 | Contact originated on Roblox, including cases that migrated to Discord, Snap, or Meta |
| 4 | Harm category identified: grooming, sextortion, solicitation of explicit content, or in-person meeting or assault |
| 5 | Parent or guardian identified, reachable, and willing to proceed |
| 6 | Corroborating documentation noted: police report, NCMEC CyberTipline report, forensic interview, treatment records, screenshots, or perpetrator prosecution |
| 7 | State of residence captured — limitations periods and revival windows vary materially by state |
| 8 | Claimant not currently represented by counsel |
- Criterion 1
- Child was under 18 at the time of contact
- Criterion 2
- Verifiable Roblox account — username captured, account history where available
- Criterion 3
- Contact originated on Roblox, including cases that migrated to Discord, Snap, or Meta
- Criterion 4
- Harm category identified: grooming, sextortion, solicitation of explicit content, or in-person meeting or assault
- Criterion 5
- Parent or guardian identified, reachable, and willing to proceed
- Criterion 6
- Corroborating documentation noted: police report, NCMEC CyberTipline report, forensic interview, treatment records, screenshots, or perpetrator prosecution
- Criterion 7
- State of residence captured — limitations periods and revival windows vary materially by state
- Criterion 8
- Claimant not currently represented by counsel
Gaming Disorder — qualification specification
| # | Criterion |
|---|---|
| 1 | Claimant is under 25 |
| 2 | Began playing as a minor |
| 3 | Measured usage captured as hours per day and hours per week, with onset date |
| 4 | Documented mental health or behavioral diagnosis with onset after heavy use began |
| 5 | Platform identified and use period established |
| 6 | State of residence captured, with California residency flagged separately |
| 7 | Claimant or guardian reachable and willing to proceed |
| 8 | Claimant not currently represented by counsel |
- Criterion 1
- Claimant is under 25
- Criterion 2
- Began playing as a minor
- Criterion 3
- Measured usage captured as hours per day and hours per week, with onset date
- Criterion 4
- Documented mental health or behavioral diagnosis with onset after heavy use began
- Criterion 5
- Platform identified and use period established
- Criterion 6
- State of residence captured, with California residency flagged separately
- Criterion 7
- Claimant or guardian reachable and willing to proceed
- Criterion 8
- Claimant not currently represented by counsel
Baseline thresholds shown. Usage criteria are calibrated to the purchasing firm’s own published intake standard — for example, 5+ hours daily or 2+ hours daily over five weeks (70+ hours total) — rather than fixed at a single threshold.
Terms are identical across torts. Leads are exclusive to the purchasing firm and delivered by real-time CRM post or webhook within 24 hours, with the consent record, inquiry timestamp, and originating IP attached. Leads may be returned within three business days if they fall outside the published specification, are unreachable after five documented attempts across two channels, are duplicates, or were already represented at the time of inquiry. Returns are credited against the next batch.
Pricing is set per tort and quoted after a scoping call, based on volume and delivery cadence.
How it works
- 01
Acquisition.
Paid social and search directed at parents and guardians drives claimant-initiated inquiries to tort-specific intake funnels operated separately from this site. No outbound calling, no SMS campaigns, no purchased contact data.
- 02
Qualification.
Every inquiry is screened by trained intake staff against the published specification for that tort. Inquiries that fail the spec are not delivered and are not billed.
- 03
Delivery.
Qualified leads post to your CRM within 24 hours with the full consent record and captured fields attached.
- 04
Reconciliation.
Rejects are submitted within the return window and credited. We review reject reasons with you and tighten the spec where the data supports it.
Who runs this
TechTort Leads is operated by Jeffrey Rothbart, a licensed Illinois attorney who has taught law as an adjunct professor at UIC Law and Chicago-Kent College of Law since 2007 and who operates a litigation expert services practice. Most lead vendors are built by performance marketers. This one is built by a lawyer, which is why the qualification criteria are published rather than described.
TechTort Leads LLC is a marketing services vendor. It does not provide legal services, does not represent claimants, does not evaluate the legal merit of any claim, and forms no attorney-client relationship with any person.
Compliance
Claimant-initiated inquiries only.
Every lead originates from an inbound inquiry submitted by the claimant or their guardian in response to our advertising. We do not contact identified victims, do not purchase third-party contact lists, and do not run outbound calling or SMS campaigns. The line between advertising that captures inbound inquiries and direct solicitation of identified individuals is the line this operation is built around.
Consent and records.
Every inquiry captures express written consent to be contacted, with disclosure language, timestamp, originating IP, and the form as served. Records are retained for five years and provided with each lead. Consent is specific to the purchasing firm; we do not resell or syndicate contact data.
Minors and guardian authority.
Exploitation-track inquiries involve minors. Inquiries are submitted by a parent or guardian, and guardian authority is confirmed at intake before any lead is delivered.
Fee structure.
Compensation is a flat per-lead fee for advertising and qualification services, consistent with Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2(b)(1), which permits payment of the reasonable costs of advertising. We do not accept any share of a legal fee or recovery and take no compensation contingent on case outcome.