header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 April 2025 / Harry Lambert
Issue: 8113 / Categories: Features , Profession , Social Media , Liability , Technology , Consumer , Health & safety , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Is social media a defective product? Pt 1

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
216110
In the first part of a new series, Harry Lambert puts social media firms under the spotlight, asking: to what extent are they liable for harm?
  • Considers whether it is possible to sue social media companies, or whether they are protected by immunity—either contractual or statutory.
  • Examines in detail the law in relation to social media algorithms and asks if they are covered by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.

This series evaluates the potential liability of social media companies for the harms caused by their algorithms and platform design.

This part considers whether it is possible to sue social media companies at all, or whether they are protected by contractual or statutory immunity. In part two, on the assumption that such immunity can be circumnavigated, I will consider which causes of action provide the best vehicle for such claims, against the backdrop of the wider statutory framework governing social media contained in the new Online Safety Act 2023

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll