Meta Plaintiff Recruitment Ads Ban April 2026

Quick Answer

Meta began removing attorney ads on April 9, 2026 that recruit plaintiffs for social media addiction lawsuits against Meta itself. The takedowns follow a $6M California verdict and signal a new category of platform conflict-of-interest ad policy affecting mass tort, personal injury, and regulatory-driven legal marketing.

Predict ad disapprovals before you submit — try the free Meta Rejection Predictor

Meta Pulls Plaintiff Recruitment Ads for Social Media Addiction Lawsuits April 2026 — Attorney Advertising Ban, Mass Tort Ad Compliance & Conflict-of-Interest Policy

What Meta Announced on April 9, 2026

Meta began removing advertisements from attorneys and law firms that recruit plaintiffs claiming harm from social media use as minors on April 9, 2026. The takedowns affected more than a dozen active placements identified in Axios reporting on the same day, including creative from national plaintiffs firms such as Morgan & Morgan and Sokolove Law. The removed ads ran across Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger, and Meta's Audience Network — a coordinated enforcement wave rather than a campaign-level review.

A Meta spokesperson framed the rationale publicly: the platform is "actively defending" against the underlying social media addiction lawsuits and does not permit trial lawyers to profit from its surfaces while asserting that those surfaces are harmful. The action is narrower than a general mass tort ad ban — it targets plaintiff recruitment specifically against Meta, Google, TikTok, Snap, and related social platform defendants in social media addiction and youth harm cases. Other mass tort categories remain permitted subject to standard advertising policy compliance.

According to reporting on the takedowns, Meta framed the action as removing ads that recruit plaintiffs for lawsuits it is actively defending, on the rationale that it will not allow trial lawyers to profit from its platforms while claiming they are harmful.
— Reported Meta rationale, April 2026

March 2026 Verdict and Enforcement Trigger

The April 9 enforcement wave followed a Los Angeles jury verdict in late March 2026 that found Meta and Alphabet's YouTube negligent in an individual social media addiction case. The jury awarded combined damages of approximately six million US dollars to a young woman who alleged that compulsive Instagram and YouTube use during adolescence produced sustained depression and suicidal ideation. The verdict was the first US jury finding of social platform negligence in an individual case and signaled that the broader multi-district litigation had reached a stage where jury damages are realistic rather than theoretical.

Converging Pressures

Pressure Source	Signal	Operational Effect
Litigation posture	First jury verdict of negligence with damages	Increased urgency to harmonize platform behavior with defense strategy
Regulatory attention	State AG coordinated actions, federal legislative proposals on platform youth harm liability	Platform pressure to demonstrate user-safety posture
Shareholder signal	Institutional investor briefings flagging litigation as material risk	Pressure for litigation risk mitigation operational measures
Advertiser volume	Scale of plaintiff recruitment creative across Meta surfaces	Internal determination that scale exceeded acceptable conflict threshold

Meta announced an appeal of the March verdict but simultaneously applied the ad platform action as a practical conflict management step. The action is best read as a litigation defense measure expressed through ad policy rather than a broad shift in how Meta treats attorney advertising generally. Advertisers should calibrate responses to the specific scope rather than interpret the action as an industry-wide shift. For category-specific pre-flight risk review use AI Compliance Audit.

Scope of the Enforcement Action

The exclusion zone created by Meta's action is narrower than the broader category of mass tort and personal injury advertising. Law firm marketing teams should map their campaigns against the scope carefully to distinguish campaigns subject to removal from campaigns that continue to be permitted under standard ad policy compliance.

Excluded (Removal Targets)

Social media addiction plaintiff recruitment: Creative soliciting potential claimants who allege social media use as minors caused mental health or behavioral harm.
Youth platform harm cases: Creative referencing Meta, Instagram, Facebook, Google, YouTube, TikTok, or Snap as defendants in youth harm contexts.
Algorithm-driven harm claims: Creative alleging that platform algorithmic amplification caused specific injuries to minor users.
Platform negligence individual cases: Creative recruiting plaintiffs for individual negligence suits against social platforms even outside the multi-district litigation structure.

Permitted (No Scope Change)

Non-platform mass tort categories: Pharmaceutical product liability, medical device malfunction, environmental exposure, asbestos, automotive defect, PFAS contamination — all permitted subject to existing policy compliance.
Standard personal injury: Automobile accident, workplace injury, premises liability, dog bite, slip and fall — all permitted.
Employment, family, criminal, bankruptcy, immigration: Remain permitted with general compliance obligations.

Firms operating in the excluded zone face ad rejection at submission, removal of previously approved campaigns, and in sustained cases potential ad account restrictions. Firms in permitted categories face no change in policy posture. For legal services ad policy risk scoring, review the Meta Ad Policies platform guide.

Impact on Mass Tort and Plaintiff-Side Firms

Law firms with concentrated Meta advertising investment in social media addiction plaintiff recruitment face immediate performance disruption and medium-term marketing strategy implications. The impact magnitude depends on the firm's Meta investment concentration and channel diversification posture before the enforcement wave.

Firms with High Meta Dependency

Immediate campaign removal: Active Meta campaigns in the excluded zone are taken down with refund processing for remaining runs.
Lead pipeline disruption: Plaintiff recruitment lead flow decreases until channel reallocation produces comparable volume — typically four to eight weeks.
Cost per lead increase: Channels replacing Meta investment frequently produce higher cost per lead than the Meta behavioral targeting baseline.
Creative adaptation burden: Creative formatted for Meta placement requires adaptation for search, display, and other channel formats.

Firms with Channel Diversification

Marginal disruption: Meta removal affects a portion of overall marketing investment rather than the full pipeline.
Reallocation within existing infrastructure: Existing Google Ads, search marketing, and other channel relationships absorb reallocated investment.
Competitive opportunity: Firms with diversified infrastructure maintain recruitment capability while less diversified competitors rebuild channel mix.

The impact asymmetry across firms creates competitive dynamics in the social media addiction litigation space, with firms having stronger marketing infrastructure gaining near-term advantage in plaintiff representation competition. For marketing risk review across channels use the Legal Compliance Scan.

State Bar and Regulatory Interaction

Meta's action operates as a private platform policy decision rather than a state bar disciplinary action. State bar advertising rules continue to apply across all advertising channels that firms do use, with compliance obligations unchanged by platform restriction in any single channel. Law firm marketing teams should avoid interpreting platform restrictions as any form of safe harbor from state bar obligations.

Channel-Independent Obligations

Truthful representation: Claims about firm capability, case outcomes, and plaintiff eligibility must be accurate across all advertising channels.
Attorney advertising disclosure: Where state rules require "Attorney Advertising" or equivalent disclosure, the disclosure applies across search, display, direct mail, and all other channels uniformly.
Solicitation restrictions: State rules restricting direct solicitation of represented parties, solicitation in specific timing windows, or solicitation targeting vulnerable persons apply across channels.
Unauthorized practice considerations: Multi-state campaigns must respect jurisdictional limits on unauthorized practice across all targeting configurations.

State bars have historically taken limited action regarding platform advertising decisions, treating those as business decisions of the platform rather than regulated attorney advertising issues. This posture is likely to continue with the April 9 enforcement. Firms should maintain rigorous state bar compliance across all available channels rather than relying on platform permission as a proxy for regulatory compliance. For jurisdictional compliance mapping use US Meta Compliance.

Precedent for Other Platforms and Categories

The April 9 action establishes precedent with varying strength depending on the platform and litigation category. Firms planning multi-platform marketing investment should assess precedent strength for each platform-category combination to model enforcement risk across the marketing portfolio.

Precedent Strength by Platform

Platform	Precedent Strength	Rationale
Google / YouTube	High	Co-defendant in March 2026 verdict; same conflict-of-interest analysis applies
TikTok	High	Named defendant in related youth harm litigation
Snap	Moderate	Related youth harm exposure; lower advertising scale for plaintiff recruitment
X	Low	No current direct exposure in social media addiction litigation
LinkedIn	Low	B2B surface with limited plaintiff recruitment advertising relevance
Pinterest / Reddit	Low	Limited exposure and low plaintiff recruitment advertising scale

Precedent Strength by Category

Social media addiction litigation (high): Direct precedent applies; firms should plan for similar action on Google, TikTok, Snap.
AI-generated content harm litigation (moderate): Platforms with direct exposure in AI harm cases may apply similar framework.
Algorithm transparency litigation (moderate): Platforms facing algorithmic accountability cases may restrict plaintiff recruitment in those cases.
Pharmaceutical product liability (low): Platforms have no self-interest conflict; precedent does not extend.
Medical device, environmental exposure, automotive (low): No platform self-interest; standard ad policy applies.

Firms should assume platforms with direct exposure in any given litigation category may restrict plaintiff recruitment advertising for that category. Marketing investment in plaintiff recruitment should diversify across platforms with varied exposure profiles to reduce platform-specific enforcement risk. For cross-platform policy monitoring use our Policy Change Tracker.

Strategy Adaptation for Affected Firms

Firms with significant Meta investment in affected categories face a structured adaptation program spanning immediate tactical response and medium-term strategic response. The adaptation should be executed with urgency proportionate to lead pipeline exposure.

Immediate Tactical Response (Week 1–4)

Campaign inventory: Document every Meta campaign in the excluded zone — creative, targeting, spend level, historical performance.
Channel reallocation: Redirect Meta budget to Google Ads, search marketing, programmatic display, direct response TV, direct mail, and outdoor — modeled by cost per lead rather than channel parity.
Creative adaptation: Reformat Meta creative for search ad formats, display creative specifications, and other channel requirements.
State bar compliance verification: Confirm that creative and disclosures satisfy state bar rules across all target jurisdictions in the expanded channel mix.

Medium-Term Strategic Response (Month 1–6)

Channel diversification as baseline: Maintain active presence across multiple channels at baseline level so future enforcement events affect a smaller share of marketing investment.
Organic and earned media investment: Legal content marketing, podcast appearances, referral partnerships — channels where platform enforcement cannot restrict reach.
Compliance infrastructure upgrade: Cross-channel campaign management, platform policy monitoring, state bar compliance documentation — enable rapid adaptation to future events.
Industry advocacy engagement: Participate in trade association engagement with platforms on litigation advertising policy.

For adaptation program planning and compliance audit across channels use the AI Compliance Audit configured for legal services creative.

Legal Advertising Compliance Checklist

[ ] Inventory all Meta campaigns touching excluded categories (social media addiction, youth harm against social platforms)
[ ] Identify campaigns removed in the April 9 enforcement wave and process refunds
[ ] Reallocate Meta budget across Google Ads, search, display, direct response, and other channels by cost per lead modeling
[ ] Adapt creative for replacement channel formats and targeting environments
[ ] Verify state bar attorney advertising compliance across all target jurisdictions in the new channel mix
[ ] Maintain Meta ad compliance for permitted legal services categories
[ ] Monitor Google, TikTok, Snap for parallel enforcement action in the coming months
[ ] Document channel diversification strategy as a standing marketing infrastructure policy
[ ] Invest in organic and earned media channels not subject to platform ad policy enforcement
[ ] Subscribe to policy change monitoring for ongoing platform ad policy updates

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly did Meta change on April 9, 2026 regarding attorney advertising?

Meta began removing advertisements from attorneys and law firms that recruit plaintiffs claiming harm from social media use as minors, with enforcement beginning on April 9, 2026 and publicly reported by Axios and multiple trade publications on the same day. The takedowns affected more than a dozen active ad placements identified by journalists, including creative from large national plaintiffs firms such as Morgan & Morgan and Sokolove Law. The removed ads ran across Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger, and Meta's Audience Network, with some campaigns running on multiple surfaces simultaneously. Meta's public justification framed the action as removing advertising that seeks to recruit claimants against Meta itself while Meta remains actively defending against the underlying litigation — a conflict-of-interest rationale rather than a content-level policy violation. The scope of the action is narrower than a general mass tort ad ban: it specifically targets social media addiction and social media harm litigation against Meta, Google, TikTok, Snap, and related social platform defendants. Attorney advertising for unrelated mass tort categories — pharmaceutical product liability, medical device litigation, environmental exposure claims, automobile defect cases — was not affected by the April 9 enforcement wave. Advertisers in the legal services category should understand the action as a category-specific enforcement response rather than a broader shift in Meta's legal services advertising policy. The underlying policy basis cited by Meta references advertising transparency, litigation-related advertising standards, and platform-specific conflict provisions that Meta has applied historically in narrower circumstances. The April 9 application represents the first time Meta has invoked these provisions at scale against mass tort plaintiff recruitment advertising directed at Meta itself. For ongoing Meta policy enforcement monitoring, see our Policy Change Tracker and review the Meta Ad Policies platform guide.

Why did Meta take this action now and what triggered the enforcement wave?

The April 9, 2026 enforcement wave followed a Los Angeles jury verdict in late March 2026 that found Meta and Alphabet's YouTube negligent in a social media addiction case, ordering combined damages of approximately six million US dollars in favor of a young woman who alleged that compulsive Instagram and YouTube use during adolescence caused sustained depression and suicidal ideation. The verdict was the first US jury finding of social platform negligence in an individual social media harm case, and it signaled that the broader multi-district litigation against social media defendants had reached a stage where jury-awarded damages are a realistic outcome rather than a theoretical possibility. Meta announced an appeal but simultaneously took the ad platform action as a practical conflict management step. The enforcement wave reflects three converging pressures that Meta has managed since the 2022 consolidation of social media addiction cases into multi-district litigation. First, the volume of plaintiff recruitment advertising on Meta surfaces had grown to a scale that Meta internally considered inconsistent with the ongoing litigation defense posture. Attorney ads targeting users who might qualify as plaintiffs operated at scale across multiple firms, with some campaigns using audience targeting signals that matched Meta's own user base demographics and behavioral characteristics associated with higher addiction litigation plausibility. Second, regulatory and legislative attention to social media harm litigation had intensified, with state attorneys general in multiple jurisdictions joining coordinated actions and federal legislative proposals addressing platform liability for youth harm gaining traction. The regulatory environment created pressure on Meta to demonstrate that its platforms would not profit from advertising that undermines the platform's litigation position on user safety. Third, shareholder pressure had emerged following analyst reports identifying the social media addiction litigation as a material risk to Meta's long-term financial position, with institutional investors pressing for litigation risk mitigation measures including operational changes that reduce the scale of plaintiff recruitment. The April 9 action addresses all three pressures while stopping short of broader changes to legal services advertising policy. The action is best understood as a litigation defense measure applied through ad policy rather than a fundamental shift in how Meta approaches attorney advertising generally. For legal services advertising compliance, review our AI Compliance Audit and the US Meta Compliance guide.

Which attorney advertising categories remain allowed on Meta after the April 2026 enforcement?

Attorney and law firm advertising remains broadly permitted on Meta after the April 9, 2026 enforcement wave, with the specific exclusion applying only to plaintiff recruitment for social media addiction litigation against Meta and related social platform defendants. Law firms and legal services advertisers should continue operating normally in the legal services advertising category subject to the existing Meta advertising policies that govern legal services advertising, with awareness of the specific exclusion zone created by the April 9 action. Broadly permitted categories include personal injury advertising for non-social-media harm causes including automobile accident claims, workplace injury claims, premises liability claims, dog bite injury claims, and general negligence claims. Personal injury ads must comply with Meta's general advertising policies including truthful representation of services, appropriate disclosure of attorney advertising status where required by state bar rules, and compliance with targeting restrictions that apply to legal services. Pharmaceutical and medical device mass tort advertising remains permitted for mass tort categories unrelated to social platform defendants, including drug product liability claims, medical device malfunction claims, and defective product claims. Mass tort advertisers should continue compliance with state bar attorney advertising rules, Meta's general advertising policies, and any restricted category requirements that may apply to specific pharmaceutical or medical device claims. Employment law advertising including wrongful termination claims, wage and hour claims, workplace discrimination claims, and union organizing related claims remains permitted subject to general ad policy compliance. Family law advertising including divorce, custody, and estate planning services remains permitted with appropriate sensitivity and disclosure. Criminal defense advertising remains permitted with state-specific attorney advertising rule compliance. Bankruptcy and consumer debt relief advertising remains permitted with relevant disclosure requirements. Immigration law advertising remains permitted with general compliance. The specifically excluded zone covers attorney advertising that recruits plaintiffs against Meta, Google, TikTok, Snap, or related social platform defendants in social media addiction, youth harm, or platform negligence cases. Advertisers in these excluded categories face ad rejection, campaign removal, and in cases of continued attempts to advertise potentially ad account restrictions. Advertisers with existing campaigns in the excluded zone should expect rejection during campaign review, removal of previously approved campaigns, and refund processing for canceled runs. Advertisers planning campaigns in the excluded zone should redirect marketing investment toward channels not subject to Meta's enforcement action. For legal services advertising compliance frameworks across platforms, use our Legal Compliance Scan and review the Meta Ad Policies guide.

What are the state bar implications of Meta's platform-level attorney advertising restrictions?

Meta's April 9, 2026 enforcement action interacts with state bar attorney advertising regulation in several complex ways that law firm marketing teams should understand when planning campaign investment. State bars have regulatory authority over attorney advertising in their respective states through rules of professional conduct that typically address truthful representation, avoidance of misleading statements, disclosure requirements, and restrictions on specific solicitation practices. State bar rules operate independently of platform advertising policies, meaning that platform permission to advertise does not imply state bar compliance, and platform enforcement action does not waive state bar compliance obligations. The first implication relates to the regulatory status of Meta's action under state bar frameworks. Meta's enforcement is a private platform policy action rather than a state bar disciplinary action, and it does not directly change state bar rule applicability. Attorneys and firms whose campaigns were removed by Meta continue to be subject to state bar advertising rules and remain responsible for compliance with those rules in advertising channels they do use. The second implication relates to the targeting restrictions that Meta's action effectively creates. State bar rules generally permit attorneys to solicit potential clients through various channels subject to truthful representation and disclosure requirements. Meta's action restricts one specific channel for one specific type of advertising. Attorneys affected by the restriction retain full ability to advertise through other channels including Google Ads, search advertising, direct mail, television advertising, billboards, search engine optimization, referral networks, and other social platforms that have not enacted similar restrictions. State bar compliance obligations apply across all channels uniformly. The third implication relates to the competitive dynamics created by the platform action. Firms with broader channel investment continue reaching potential plaintiffs through multiple channels. Firms dependent on Meta advertising for plaintiff recruitment face higher marketing cost and lower recruitment efficiency while they reallocate marketing investment. The competitive shift may affect firms' ability to compete for plaintiff representation in the social media addiction litigation space, with firms having stronger marketing infrastructure gaining advantage over firms with more limited channel diversification. The fourth implication relates to the regulatory watchdog role of state bars in platform advertising disputes. State bars have historically taken limited action regarding platform advertising decisions, treating those as business decisions of the platform rather than regulated attorney advertising issues. This pattern is likely to continue with the April 9 enforcement, with state bars focused on ensuring that attorney advertising in available channels remains compliant with state rules rather than challenging platform decisions to restrict specific advertising. Law firms should maintain state bar compliance rigorously across all advertising channels and should not interpret platform restrictions as creating any safe harbor from state bar obligations. For multi-jurisdiction legal advertising compliance, use our Legal Compliance Scan.

How should mass tort and plaintiff-side law firms adapt their marketing strategy after the enforcement?

Mass tort and plaintiff-side law firms with significant investment in Meta advertising for social media addiction plaintiff recruitment face a multi-dimensional marketing strategy adaptation requirement, with immediate tactical responses to the April 9 enforcement and longer-term strategic responses to the evolving platform ad policy environment for litigation advertising. The immediate tactical response begins with comprehensive inventory of affected campaigns. Law firms should identify all Meta advertising campaigns targeting social media addiction plaintiff recruitment including Facebook Ads Manager campaigns, Instagram campaigns, Messenger ads, Threads ads, and Audience Network placements. The inventory should document campaign creative, targeting configuration, spend level, and performance metrics. The inventory supports both understanding the scale of impact and planning channel reallocation. The second immediate step is channel reallocation of marketing investment. Channels that remain available for social media addiction plaintiff recruitment include Google Ads (with compliance monitoring for any future Google policy action), search engine marketing on Bing and other search engines, programmatic display advertising outside Meta's Audience Network, direct response television, direct mail, print publications, and outdoor advertising. Channel selection should consider cost per lead, targeting precision, and regulatory compliance across the relevant channels. Firms should expect channel reallocation to produce different cost per lead economics than the Meta baseline and should model marketing budgets accordingly. The third immediate step is creative adaptation for the available channels. Creative that worked well in Meta's behavioral targeting environment may require adaptation for search advertising, display advertising, and other channel formats with different audience signal availability. Creative adaptation should maintain compliance with state bar attorney advertising rules in all target jurisdictions. The longer-term strategic response begins with channel diversification as a permanent feature of the firm's marketing infrastructure rather than a response to a single platform enforcement event. Firms should invest in maintaining active presence across multiple channels at baseline level so that future platform enforcement events affect a smaller portion of overall marketing investment. The second strategic response is investment in organic and earned media channels that are not subject to platform ad policy restrictions. Legal content marketing, podcast appearances, media relations, and referral partnerships represent channels where platform enforcement cannot restrict reach directly. Firms with strong organic presence maintain plaintiff recruitment capability across platform ad policy cycles. The third strategic response is participation in industry advocacy for platform advertising policies that treat litigation advertising consistently with other commercial advertising subject to applicable state bar and regulatory rules. The mass tort advertising industry maintains trade associations and policy advocacy infrastructure that can engage with platforms on ad policy issues. The fourth strategic response is compliance infrastructure improvement including state bar compliance documentation, platform policy monitoring, and cross-channel campaign management that enables rapid adaptation to future platform ad policy events. For ongoing legal services advertising policy monitoring, subscribe to our Policy Change Tracker and use the AI Compliance Audit configured for legal services creative.

Does this action set a precedent for other platforms restricting litigation-related advertising?

The April 9, 2026 Meta enforcement action establishes a meaningful precedent for platform restriction of litigation-related advertising directed against the platform itself, though the specific circumstances of the Meta action limit how broadly the precedent extends. Other platforms and other litigation categories face different risk calculus that determines the likelihood of similar enforcement actions. The precedent is strongest for platforms that are themselves defendants in litigation and that host plaintiff recruitment advertising for that same litigation. Google, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap face related social media addiction litigation and host plaintiff recruitment advertising for those cases on their own ad platforms. Each of these platforms faces similar conflict-of-interest analysis as Meta faced before the April 9 action. Based on the Meta precedent, these platforms may consider similar enforcement action in the coming months. Google specifically has been the subject of policy expansion speculation following the March 2026 verdict that found both Meta and YouTube negligent. Google has not announced parallel enforcement but is reportedly reviewing its position on plaintiff recruitment advertising for social media addiction cases. Platforms that host plaintiff recruitment advertising for litigation against their own parent companies or subsidiaries face similar analysis. The precedent is weaker for platforms that host plaintiff recruitment advertising for litigation against other parties. X, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Reddit, and other platforms without direct exposure in social media addiction litigation have no immediate conflict-of-interest basis to restrict plaintiff recruitment advertising. These platforms may review their advertising policies in response to the Meta action but lack the specific motivation that drove Meta's decision. The precedent is extremely narrow for non-social-media-addiction mass tort advertising. Pharmaceutical product liability, medical device litigation, environmental exposure claims, and other mass tort categories do not implicate platform self-interest in the same way. Platforms are unlikely to restrict mass tort advertising in these categories based on the Meta precedent alone, though platforms may tighten general policy compliance for all mass tort categories. The precedent is moderate for future emerging litigation categories that may implicate platforms directly. Algorithm transparency litigation, content moderation liability litigation, AI-generated content harm litigation, and other emerging platform liability categories may generate similar self-interest calculus in the future. Platforms may develop policy frameworks that proactively address plaintiff recruitment advertising for litigation against themselves rather than waiting for specific enforcement events. Law firm marketing strategy should assume that platforms with direct exposure in a given litigation category may restrict plaintiff recruitment advertising for that category. Marketing investment in plaintiff recruitment should be distributed across platforms with varied exposure profiles to reduce platform-specific enforcement risk. For comprehensive platform advertising policy monitoring, subscribe to our Policy Change Tracker and review the Meta Ad Policies guide.

Don't miss the next policy change.

Create a free account — track every policy change across 8 platforms, get instant alerts, and access every free compliance tool. Or try our Meta Rejection Predictor first.

Create Free Account

Report Keywords — Run AI Compliance Audit

#Meta Ads#Attorney Advertising#Mass Tort#Legal Ads#Ad Policy#Social Media Addiction#Plaintiff Recruitment#Brand Safety#Platform Policy#2026 Policy#Advertisers#Compliance Guide 2026

Share This Report

Tweet Share

Platforms

Industries

Knowledge

Blog

Meta Pulls Plaintiff Recruitment Ads for Social Media Addiction Lawsuits April 2026 — Attorney Advertising Ban, Mass Tort Ad Compliance & Conflict-of-Interest Policy