Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Litigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Wilkes County Schools board approves joining social-media litigation to recoup student-support costs

Wilkes County Board of Education · October 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On Oct. 6 the Wilkes County Board of Education voted to join litigation against major social media companies, authorizing district participation under a contingency arrangement with Ward Black Law and noting no upfront budget allocation is required.

The Wilkes County Board of Education voted Oct. 6 to join litigation against major social media platforms, a move board members said aims to recover district costs tied to student mental health and academic impacts.

The motion to participate, made by Dr. Donna Cotton and seconded by Joan Caudill, was approved by the board. Agenda materials recommended participation and noted the district would pursue joined action with Ward Black Law, a firm that—according to the materials—operates on a contingency-fee basis, meaning the district would incur no upfront or ongoing legal fees and would owe costs only if the suit produces recovery.

Board documents described the litigation as targeting platform features that plaintiffs allege foster addictive behavior, lack meaningful age verification and contribute to decreased well-being, attendance and academic performance among students. The agenda text said districts nationwide have sought damages and reimbursement for resources expended responding to those harms, including counseling and staff time.

Superintendent D. Mark Byrd provided the materials for the board’s consideration; the agenda materials noted the district’s attorney, Fred Johnson, advised that participation would have minimal staff obligations and require no budget appropriation. The board did not record a roll-call tally in the minutes beyond noting the motion was “duly carried.”

Board members did not debate terms of engagement with the law firm in detail during the meeting, and no timeline for filing or next procedural steps was specified in the public minutes. The district’s approval authorizes staff to proceed with the participation process described in the agenda materials.