header-logo header-logo

21 November 2025 / Harry Lambert
Issue: 8140 / Categories: Features , Profession , Technology , Social Media , Liability , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Is social media a defective product? Pt 3

236032
Could tortious liability be the only tool to make Big Tech pay for the psychological harms stemming from social media use? Harry Lambert issues a call to arms
  • Social media platforms intentionally create and normalise addiction through algorithms engineered to exploit users’ emotional and neurological vulnerabilities.
  • The article argues that tortious liability should extend to social media companies, as their deliberate design choices foreseeably cause psychological harm—including addiction, depression, sexploitation and body dysmorphia—while generating profit from those very harms.

Example 1: Addiction

Companies do morally dubious things every day, but there is no tort of being ‘dastardly’. So the first question we need to tackle head-on is why tortious liability should exist at all. In other words, why does making an addictive social media platform attract liability, in a way that (say) making an addictive cigarette or a gambling platform—or even, for that matter, a delicious chocolate bar—does not?

Each comparison helps us tease out the legally and morally relevant features at play.

Starting

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll