Florida Attorney General Sues Discord Over Child Safety Claims

Florida Attorney General Sues Discord Over Child Safety Claims

Florida's attorney general sued Discord Inc. on October 15, 2026, alleging the chat platform marketed itself to families as safe for children while failing to verify ages or keep predators out. Discord has not answered, and every allegation remains unproven.

Information last verified on October 24, 2026.

Status: The complaint was e-filed on October 15, 2026 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Glades County, Florida, Civil Division (Filing # 259248743). The copy published by the Attorney General carries a blank case number line, and we found no docket number as of October 24, 2026. Discord has not filed an answer, no court has ruled on any count, and every factual assertion described below is an allegation by the State of Florida.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers one Florida state-court enforcement action brought under Florida statutes and Florida common law. It does not cover federal claims, other states' suits against Discord, or any criminal prosecution. It is also separate from the federal constitutional challenge to Florida HB 3 and Fla. Stat. 501.1736, which we cover in the Eleventh Circuit's October 14 ruling on minors' social media accounts.

What Happened

The Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs e-filed a seven-count civil complaint against Discord Inc. on October 15, 2026 at 8:49 a.m., in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Glades County, Florida, Civil Division, under Filing # 259248743. The State pleads three counts under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 501.204(1), one count under Florida's online child protection statute, Fla. Stat. 501.1735, and counts for negligence, negligent misrepresentation and public nuisance, the last pleaded under Fla. Stat. 60.05 and 823.01 and at common law. It asks for a permanent injunction, disgorgement and restitution, civil penalties, the cost of abating a public nuisance, and attorney's fees under Fla. Stat. 501.2075 and 501.2105, and it demands a jury trial. Discord Inc. is pleaded as a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco.

The Attorney General states that he reviewed the matter under Fla. Stat. 501.206 and determined that an enforcement action serves the public interest, the written predicate Fla. Stat. 501.207(2) requires. Venue rests on Fla. Stat. 47.051, and personal jurisdiction on Florida's long-arm statute, Fla. Stat. 48.193(1)(a)(1), plus the special jurisdictional provision in Fla. Stat. 501.1735(5). Lawyers from the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division signed the complaint alongside outside counsel from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.

The pleading's factual allegations run in five parts, and the State's thesis is stated in its first line.

"Predators seeking to abuse Florida children love Discord." Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida v. Discord Inc., complaint at paragraph 1 (allegation)

The first part alleges Discord designed and marketed its application to attract children, quoting Discord's own promotional language. The complaint pleads roughly 2.7 million monthly active United States users under 18 as of February 2024, more than 90 million daily active users and more than 200 million monthly active users worldwide, and paid subscriptions at $9.99 per month or $99.99 per year for Nitro and $2.99 per month or $29.99 per year for Nitro Basic.

The second part collects Discord's public safety statements, including that safety is at the core of everything the company does and that it makes its products safe spaces by design and default, and alleges those statements were false when made and remain false. Those same statements become the misrepresentations pleaded in Counts III and VI.

The third part is the State's evidentiary core, and it is the part this article deliberately summarizes rather than reproduces. Paragraphs 2 through 9 open the complaint with eight one-line summaries of Florida matters in which adults are alleged or were found to have sexually exploited children they reached through Discord, and paragraphs 46 through 52 set seven of them out at length with counties, charges, convictions and the ages of the adult and the child. Several ended in guilty pleas, one in a 25-year sentence and two in life sentences. Three of the seven are pleaded as an arrest and charge or an indictment with no conviction reported, and are therefore unresolved accusations. We do not repeat the details or the names: the individuals described are not parties to this case, the children must not be further identified, and the conduct alleged is graphic. The State's purpose in pleading those matters is structural rather than individual. It argues the same platform features recur across every one of them, which is how it builds a theory that the harm flows from Discord's design rather than from isolated bad actors. The complaint adds that the Attorney General received complaints from Florida residents, including a parent reporting an adult grooming a teenager; that the National Center on Sexual Exploitation listed Discord on its annual Dirty Dozen list for a fifth year; and that the Federal Trade Commission ordered Discord in December 2020 to produce information about its data practices. It also alleges that organized sextortion networks use the platform to share tactics and recruit, a pattern our explainer on sextortion and what to do about it describes in general terms.

The fourth part is the design case, and it is the most specific section of the pleading. The State alleges that account creation asks only for an email address, username, password and date of birth, with no verification of identity or age; that a server's default verification level is None; that the AutoMod filtering tool is off by default; that Discord does not store the contents of live voice or video chats and therefore does not monitor them; and that Discord does not scan smaller spaces such as direct messages, group chats and small servers for Community Guidelines violations beyond high-harm categories like child sexual abuse material and malware. On enforcement, it alleges most violations expire after 90 days, account suspensions are temporary, and banned users can simply create new accounts. It further alleges that child sexual abuse material on the platform rose 474 percent from 2021 to 2022 and that Discord executives conceded the company had not been proactive. Each of those is an allegation the State would have to prove.

The fifth part addresses timing. The complaint repeatedly qualifies its settings allegations with the phrase "at least until September 22, 2026," the date it says Discord announced its age assurance system, and alleges those changes arrived months after the Attorney General opened an investigation and cannot undo earlier conduct. Discord's own post of that date describes sorting users into teen and adult age groups using account signals, routing messages from non-friends into a separate request inbox, blurring or blocking sensitive content, and offering several ways to confirm adult status. Discord says more than 90 percent of users will not be asked to confirm their age. That post does not mention Florida or this lawsuit.

We looked for Discord's response. As of October 24, 2026, Discord's press release index, its safety news hub and its blog carry no statement addressing the Florida complaint. A company's own channel is the only source we will use for its position, so we are reporting the absence of a published statement rather than characterizing it as silence or agreement.

What the Law Actually Says

Fla. Stat. 501.204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." Subsection (2) directs Florida courts to give great weight to Federal Trade Commission and federal court interpretations of section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act as of July 1, 2017. The statute does not define unfair, unconscionable or deceptive, which is why the complaint supplies tests from case law: it cites PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Property Management, Inc., 842 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2003), for the unfairness and deception standards, and Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Diamond, 140 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), for the FTC three-part unfairness test. Those are the complaint's authorities, described as the State framed them.

Enforcement under FDUTPA is public. Fla. Stat. 501.207 lets the enforcing authority sue for a declaratory judgment, an injunction and other relief, and 501.207(2) requires the head of that authority, before bringing an action under paragraph (1)(a) or paragraph (1)(c), to determine in writing that an enforcement action serves the public interest. The penalty sits in Fla. Stat. 501.2075: "Except as provided in s. 501.2077," a person willfully using a practice declared unlawful under 501.204 "is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each such violation," and a violation is willful where the person "knew or should have known that his or her conduct was unfair or deceptive or prohibited by rule."

That carve-out matters for reading the penalty figures correctly. Fla. Stat. 501.2077 raises the cap to $15,000, and it applies to violations that victimize a senior citizen or a person who has a disability, or that are directed at a military servicemember or a servicemember's spouse or dependent child. Its triggers are the victim's status as a senior citizen or a person who has a disability, or the practice being directed at a servicemember's household. Nothing in it is triggered by a victim's being a minor. The larger numbers in this case do not come from FDUTPA's penalty sections at all.

Fla. Stat. 501.1735 is a data statute, not an age-gate statute

The $50,000 and $150,000 figures come from Fla. Stat. 501.1735, titled "Protection of children in online spaces; public records exemption." It was created by section 2 of chapter 2023-201, Laws of Florida (CS/CS/SB 262, 2023), which the Legislature gave an effective date of July 1, 2024 except as otherwise provided, and it was amended by chapter 2023-262 and by section 10 of chapter 2026-52.

The section's architecture is narrower than the phrase "child safety law" suggests. It applies to an "online platform that provides an online service, product, game, or feature likely to be predominantly accessed by children." An online platform means a social media platform as defined in Fla. Stat. 112.23(1), an online game, or an online gaming platform, and 112.23(1)(b) defines a social media platform broadly as "a form of electronic communication through which users create online communities or groups to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content." A child is any consumer under 18.

Subsection (2) then lists eight prohibitions, and every one concerns personal information rather than content moderation or age gates. A covered platform may not process a child's personal information with actual knowledge of, or willful disregard for, the risk that the processing may cause substantial harm or privacy risk to children; profile a child absent safeguards and either necessity or a compelling reason; collect, sell, share or retain personal information that is not necessary for the service the child is knowingly engaged with; use a child's data for a purpose other than the one it was collected for; collect, sell or share precise geolocation data unless strictly necessary; collect precise geolocation without an obvious sign to the child; use dark patterns to extract data, to push children to forego privacy protections, or to lead a child to take any action the platform knows or willfully disregards may cause substantial harm or privacy risk; or reuse or over-retain data gathered to estimate age. Subsection (1)(l) defines "substantial harm or privacy risk to children" to include sexual exploitation, enticement, sex trafficking and online sexual abuse material, which is the hook the State uses to connect a data statute to grooming allegations.

Three structural features of the section carry weight. Subsection (3) places the burden on the platform to demonstrate that its processing does not violate subsection (2). Subsection (4)(a) makes any subsection (2) violation an unfair and deceptive trade practice actionable under part II of chapter 501 "solely by the department," and provides that "the department may collect a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per violation of this section. Civil penalties may be tripled for any violation involving a Florida child who the online platform has actual knowledge is under 18 years of age." That is where the $50,000 and $150,000 come from, and the trebling is conditioned on actual knowledge of a particular child's age. Subsection (4)(b) lets the department, in its discretion, grant a 45-day cure period after written notice of an alleged violation. Subsection (4)(c) limits any action to one brought on behalf of a Florida child, and (4)(f) states that the section "does not establish a private cause of action."

One thing 501.1735 does not do is require age verification. No prohibition in subsection (2) tells a platform to check anyone's age, and subsection (2)(h) actually restricts what a platform may do with data it collects to estimate age. Florida's minor-account and age-check mandates live in different sections, Fla. Stat. 501.1736 and 501.1737, enacted by HB 3 in 2024 and summarized on our page on Florida's two age-verification provisions; the wider state picture is on our age-verification hub. That division explains two features of this complaint: the State pleads Discord's age checks under FDUTPA's general unfairness and unconscionability standard in Counts I through III, and Count IV pleads only the data-processing prohibitions in 501.1735(2)(a) through (d). The complaint's own recitation of the statute, at paragraph 142, stops at subsection (2)(f) and never quotes the dark-pattern or age-estimation prohibitions in (2)(g) and (2)(h).

The common law counts

Count V pleads negligence on a defective-product theory, relying on Grieco v. Daiho Sangyo, Inc., 344 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), as cited in the complaint, for the proposition that a manufacturer may be liable where a product was defective or unreasonably dangerous. The alleged defects are the four design choices above: circumventable age entry, lowest-setting defaults before September 22, 2026, unmonitored private spaces, and enforcement that leaves offenders on the platform.

Count VI pleads negligent misrepresentation using the four elements the complaint draws from Specialty Marine and Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Venus, 66 So. 3d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011): a false statement of material fact the speaker believed true, negligence in making it, intent to induce reliance, and injury from justifiable reliance. In both counts the State asserts it may bring common law claims as the public interest requires.

Count VII pleads public nuisance under Fla. Stat. 60.05 and 823.01 and at common law, and the statutory text repays a close read. Fla. Stat. 823.01 provides that "[a]ll nuisances that tend to annoy the community, injure the health of the citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals are misdemeanors of the second degree," a criminal classification rather than a civil cause of action. Fla. Stat. 60.05(1) authorizes the Attorney General and others to sue to enjoin a nuisance, but by its own terms it operates "[w]hen any nuisance as defined in s. 823.05 exists." Section 823.05 in turn defines the nuisance it abates almost entirely by reference to a physical place: a building, booth, tent or place that annoys or injures the community as provided in 823.01, a house of prostitution or lewdness, a place for unlawful games of chance, a place where any law of the state is violated, or a location used for criminal gang activity. The State also invokes common law public nuisance, which those statutory cross-references do not limit.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The pleading choice worth noticing is what the State did not plead. No count asks a court to hold Discord liable for a particular user's message or for a particular moderation call. The State's core theory is marketing plus product design plus data handling. Counts V and VII do reach Discord's moderation and enforcement as a class: Count V pleads that Discord fails to monitor private spaces and leaves offenders on the platform, and Count VII rests the nuisance on the activity those practices allegedly allow. That framing still keeps the case inside consumer protection and tort doctrine, where the asserted duty attaches to the company's own commercial statements and its own engineering and enforcement choices rather than to any individual third-party post: Discord said safety was at the core of everything it did, the defaults were allegedly set the other way, and the statute the State reaches for regulates data processing.

Penalty arithmetic is the leverage, and the complaint has not quantified it. A $50,000 per-violation cap, trebled on actual knowledge, means little until a court decides what counts as one violation: one child, one account, one processing event, one day. The complaint alleges thousands of Florida child users monthly on information and belief and proposes no unit. Pair that with subsection (3), which puts the burden on the platform to show its processing was lawful, and Count IV is the count carrying the heaviest civil-penalty exposure even though it is the narrowest of the seven. The uncapped disgorgement and restitution the State also asks for are not quantified anywhere in the pleading.

Timing is the open question the pleading leaves on the table. Section 501.1735 took effect on July 1, 2024. The complaint alleges conduct spanning years, including a 2021 to 2022 increase in abuse material and settings it dates to a change on September 22, 2026, and it does not separate pre-effective-date from post-effective-date conduct for Count IV. The FDUTPA counts do not face that issue, since FDUTPA long predates the conduct alleged. How a court sorts the statutory count's temporal reach is among the first things to watch.

The September 22 announcement is doing double duty in the pleading. The State uses it both as an implicit concession that the earlier defaults were inadequate and as an insufficient fix that cannot moot injunctive relief. Discord's own description of that rollout, which it presents as a global age assurance system rather than a Florida measure, is the company's fullest public account of what changed, and it is the reason the complaint's settings allegations are written in the past tense behind an "at least until September 22, 2026" qualifier. The practical consequence is that the record will have to address two versions of the same product.

Two narrower observations. The public nuisance count is the most doctrinally exposed of the seven on the face of the statutes it cites, because 60.05's abatement authority is keyed by its own text to 823.05, which defines a nuisance by reference to a physical place in every category except criminal gang membership, while 823.01 is a criminal classification; the common law invocation is what carries that count. And subsection (4)(b) makes a 45-day cure period discretionary rather than mandatory, so the complaint's silence about whether one was offered establishes nothing, though it is the sort of question a defendant tends to raise early.

Finally, the same week produced two very different Florida child-online developments, and they should not be blurred together. The Eleventh Circuit ruling of October 14, 2026 concerns HB 3 and Fla. Stat. 501.1736, and asks a federal First Amendment question about whether Florida may restrict minors' accounts at all. This complaint, filed the next day, is a state-court consumer protection case about what a platform told parents. Private claims by individuals travel on yet another track, which our overview of social media harm litigation sets out. Separate tests, separate records, separate remedies.

What Happens Next

The copy the Attorney General published on October 15 shows a blank case number line, and we located no docket number as of October 24, 2026. The next step in the ordinary course is service followed by Discord's first response, which under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140 is an answer or a motion directed at the pleadings. Nothing in the public record yet shows either, and no hearing date is public.

Discord had published nothing about this suit on its own channels as of October 24, 2026. If the company posts a statement, its own newsroom or blog is where it will appear, and we will add it here.

One statutory wrinkle shapes how much of the investigative record becomes public. Fla. Stat. 501.1735(6) makes information the department received through a violation notification or an investigation confidential and exempt from Florida's public records law until the investigation is completed or ceases to be active, and it keeps several categories exempt afterwards, including personal information, computer forensic reports and proprietary information. That exemption is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act and stands repealed on October 2, 2028 unless the Legislature reenacts it.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers one civil complaint filed under Florida state law and the Florida statutes that complaint cites, as verified on October 24, 2026. The case is at the pleading stage, and every allegation described above is unproven. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Related articles

• Age-verification laws state by state
• Where KOSA and COPPA 2.0 stand
• COPPA compliance for child-directed services
• Eleventh Circuit on Florida HB 3 and minors' accounts

---

Last updated: 2026-10-24. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-10-24.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has a court found that Discord violated Florida law?

No. The State of Florida filed its complaint on October 15, 2026. Discord has not answered, no court has ruled on any count, and every assertion in the complaint is an allegation by the State.

What is the case number for the Florida lawsuit against Discord?

The copy of the complaint published by the Florida Attorney General shows a blank case number line, which is normal for an initial e-filing. It carries Filing # 259248743 and was e-filed in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Glades County, Florida on October 15, 2026. We found no assigned docket number as of October 24, 2026.

What is Florida Statute 501.1735?

It is titled Protection of children in online spaces, and it regulates how an online platform likely to be predominantly accessed by children handles children's personal information. Subsection (2) lists eight data practices a covered platform may not engage in, and subsection (4)(a) makes a violation an unfair and deceptive trade practice enforceable only by the Department of Legal Affairs.

Does Florida Statute 501.1735 require platforms to verify a user's age?

No. Nothing in subsection (2) requires age verification, and subsection (2)(h) limits what a platform may do with personal information it collects to estimate age. Florida's minor-account and age-check mandates are in Fla. Stat. 501.1736 and 501.1737, which HB 3 enacted in 2024.

How large are the civil penalties Florida is seeking from Discord?

The complaint asks for up to $10,000 per willful FDUTPA violation under Fla. Stat. 501.2075, up to $50,000 per violation of Fla. Stat. 501.1735 under subsection (4)(a), and up to $150,000 per violation where Discord had actual knowledge that a Florida child was under 18. The complaint does not state how many violations it will claim.

Is the $150,000 figure a FDUTPA penalty?

No. FDUTPA's penalty sections cap at $10,000 under Fla. Stat. 501.2075 and at $15,000 under Fla. Stat. 501.2077, and 501.2077 covers senior citizens, people who have a disability, and military servicemembers and their spouses or dependent children, and is not triggered by a victim's being a minor. The $50,000 cap and the trebling to $150,000 come from Fla. Stat. 501.1735(4)(a).

Can a parent sue Discord under Florida Statute 501.1735?

The statute does not provide for it. Subsection (4)(f) states that the section does not establish a private cause of action, and subsection (4)(a) makes a violation actionable solely by the Department of Legal Affairs. That is a description of the statute, not advice about any individual situation.

Has Discord responded to the Florida lawsuit?

We found no statement from Discord about this complaint on its press release index, its safety news hub or its blog as of October 24, 2026. Discord's September 22, 2026 post about teen defaults and age assurance predates the filing and does not mention Florida or this case.

Is this the same case as the Florida HB 3 social media litigation?

No. The HB 3 matter is a federal First Amendment challenge to Fla. Stat. 501.1736, which the Eleventh Circuit addressed at the preliminary-injunction stage on October 14, 2026. This complaint is a Florida state-court enforcement action under FDUTPA, Fla. Stat. 501.1735 and Florida common law.