Let’s Help Children, Not Trial Lawyers
from the the-liability-tax dept
The recent “internet addiction” verdicts against Apple, Meta, and YouTube drew applause from those eager to see big tech take a hit. But look behind the headlines and the result is something else entirely. These cases won’t help children. They will fuel a litigation plague that raises costs, chills innovation and hits smaller companies the hardest.
The legal theory behind these cases tries to work around Section 230 by shifting the focus from user content to product design. Plaintiffs argue that features like infinite scroll or “like” buttons create harm independent of users’ personal content. It is a creative argument. It is also a slippery slope with no clear limiting principle.
Once product design becomes the hook for liability, any widely used product becomes a target. Newspapers, magazines and even packaged goods design headlines with catchy taglines to capture attention. Platforms do the same with feeds, to deliver value to their users. Labeling these as “addictive” design shouldn’t be seen as a viable path to sidestepping Section 230.
This shift also has broader economic consequences.
Trial lawyer lawsuits do not stay in the courtroom, they are priced into everything. Companies pay more for insurance, more for compliance, and more for legal defense. Those costs flow through to consumers in the form of higher prices and fewer options. At a moment when affordability dominates national conversations, this is a factor we cannot ignore.
These cases are shaped by a litigation system that rewards scale and escalation. They are enormously expensive and often backed by third-party funders, which drives plaintiffs’ lawyers to seek the highest possible damages. In last month’s Los Angeles trial, plaintiffs asked for billions but secured just $6 million, about 0.5% of what was requested. Even that figure is diminished when measured against the cost of bringing the case. And when outcomes fall short, the incentive is to pursue more cases or larger awards to justify the investment.
This burden is uniquely American. U.S. companies face a level of litigation exposure that most global competitors simply do not. That gap acts as an innovation tax on American firms, particularly small and early-stage companies that drive job creation and new ideas. We should be asking how to reduce that burden, not expand it.
Roughly 80% of CTA’s members are small or early-stage companies. They do not have the budgets or legal teams to absorb years of litigation risk. For them, the threat of open-ended lawsuits is not theoretical. It shapes what they build, how they build it, and whether they can exist it at all.
This is how an innovation economy slows without a single vote in Congress. Startups pull back, new features go unbuilt, and investment shifts away from risk. Over time, innovation slows, and momentum shifts from startups to incumbents.
None of this means concerns about children’s online experiences should be dismissed. They should be taken seriously. But lawsuits are blunt instruments that do little to address the underlying issues.
There are better and more effective paths.
Platforms have already invested heavily in tools that give parents real control over how their children use technology. Supervised accounts, screen time limits, content filters, and transparency into usage patterns are improving quickly and becoming easier to use. Industry efforts like NetChoice’s Digital Safety Shield build on that progress by putting parents in charge rather than outsourcing decisions to courts.
Congress also has a clear role. A national privacy law that protects personal data, including children’s information, would provide real safeguards while giving companies a consistent set of rules. What Congress should avoid is layering on vague obligations that invite more litigation. It’s delayed action for years. It should not delay further.
And parents remain central. Technology has changed, but the need for engagement has not. Knowing what children are doing online, setting boundaries and staying involved matters more than any verdict.
Social media is a powerful tool with real benefits and real risks. The right response is to manage those tradeoffs in a practical way that protects children without undermining innovation.
Recent verdicts move us in the opposite direction. They reward litigation, raise costs and make it harder for the next generation of companies to succeed.
We should focus on solutions that help children, not expand a system that is already very good at benefiting trial lawyers.
Michael Petricone is the Senior VP of Government Affairs at the Consumer Technology Association.
Filed Under: innovation, internet addiction, liability, negligence, product liability, section 230, trial lawyers
Companies: meta
Comments on “Let’s Help Children, Not Trial Lawyers”
Given that Congress does not have the will to act, and we have not come upon an effective solution to these issues, this is the only way this seems be enforced. At the end of the day, these algorithms are designed to devour attention and thus are incentivised to be addicting, in ways that a newspaper and packaged goods cannot be, aside from addictive material goods like alcohol, cigarettes, etc. There is a threat to Section 230, for sure, but something needs to be done and this is a shot across the bow. If, like you say, this is Congress’ partial responsibility, then they can pass laws that protect social media companies from these suits and find an alternative solution. Lawyers are always going to be creative but it’s a force to change things, and that’s why you’ve written this article, because it’s noteworthy and a potential paradigm shift that can spark action.
Re: not quite connected to reality
My age may be showing, but I would not be as happy if there were no newspaper in the driveway each day. The vendors of newspapers count on this as part of their business model.
“Congress also has a clear role. A national privacy law that protects personal data,”
LOL
… We already have one of those, called The 4th Amendment, and Congress itself routinely violates it.
I mean, the limiting principle is whether it actually causes harm or not.
Well that’s ultimately the question- is it actually the same? Not all methods to capture attention are necessarily equally harmful or not harmful. There’s a reason no one is suing any of those industries, despite it being free money for trial lawyers.
What safeguards would this provide for this issue? Privacy is good on it’s own merits, but this literally does nothing to address the concern.
Similarly for the other two suggestions in terms of tools/parents, those already exist, and they have not been terribly effective to date.
If you’re going to suggest things like privacy laws as a solution to a completely different (potential) problem, you are effectively dismissing it. Why should this be treated as anything other than a dismissal? You didn’t even attempt to give an actual argument for how they’re more effective.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Oh hey, a lobbyist from an industry group known for lobbying against right to repair laws, Techdirt sure do love diving into bed with people who are the antithesis of everything they pretend to stand for when it suits them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Technology_Association
Re:
So you think Techdirt needs better quality control on the articles it chooses to publish.
Is that issue from just their inattention, daily deadline pressure, or some type of bias.
Re: Re:
I believe they need to stop publishing ‘think pieces’ from corporate, usually conservative billionaire or industry backed lobbyist groups last thing on a Friday when those groups inevitably stand for interests and positions that run counter to almost everything the sites regular columnists claim to stand for. The site shouldn’t allow itself to be a figleaf for people responsible for shoving America towards the abyss, just because they’re pro AI or against copyright or lawsuits on one certain issue.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Doesn’t matter if they stand with you on this one particular point when they’ve made it clear they intend to stab you in the back when it comes to everything else.
Re: Re:
They’re aware of these groups and their history. They’re just happy to run with them as long as those groups happen to agree with them on a particular issue/bill (in this case, being pro-230).
It usually pops up with right wing (usually the more libertarian ones), industry lobbies, or anti-regulation groups/lobbies being against a particular bill that TD dislikes.
Re:
What? CTA is in favor of right to repair, and have worked with iFixit on a model bill.
https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2025/01/31/right-to-repair-movement-continues-to-grow/
They’ve also partnered with iFixit on things like 1201 exemptions for repair: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/COLC-2017-0007-0030
So you’re just 100% wrong here and should apologize.
And also, while I might not always agree with everything they focus on, in my 30 years working on these issues, CTA is on the right side way, way, way more often than they’re wrong.
And on what’s written here, they’re right. And, they’re on the right side on right to repair as well. And they’re on the right side on patents and copyright issues as well.
But, as always, you have to insist that they must be evil. It must be exhausting, Bloof, that no one is so pure and righteous as you are.
Re: Re:
So let’s just ignore all the times they’ve lobbied against said laws, huh, and had spokespeople appear at public hearings defending unrepairable phones and unobtainable parts for things like ganes consoles, you know, the thing they have done consistently since laws to ban these things started being pushed for by states. They’re good on a few edge cases, so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt you don’t extend to others whenever there’s an article on others pushing against right to repair laws.
Must be exhausting to constantly twist yourself in knots to justify on a Friday, the work of people you decry every other day of the week, These aren’t people who are complex and flawed, or evolve over time, you are willingly using your reputation to act as a figleaf for lobbyist groups who actively work against everyone’s interests but their donors because that is what they exist to do. Imagine having the absolute nerve to fingerwag at others for being high and mighty for having the audacity to let people know exactly who you are running opinion pieces by and how this is a consistent npattern of behaviour.
If you want to keep people taking you seriously, actually pay attention to who you dive into bed with, and before you come back with another no-U post, I’m just some rando on the internet, I don’t care about my rep, I do care about the world I live on and the people in it, that’s why I keep banging on about ethics and will not stop.
Kind of funny, I think this has been the first thread I’ve started here that’s been hidden, wonder why that could be. I can tell people to eff themselves in no uncertain terms, but pointing out the piece comes from yet another lobbyist group dedicated to making sure you can’t have cheap phone repairs is a bit too much?
Re: Re: Re:
Reading through the articles on their website is fun, their ‘don’t crack down too hard on countries and companies that use slaves if they pinky promise they’re trying to do better.’ sure is a good take from people acting in the interest of humanity.
Re: Re: Re:
You could have just admitted “sorry, I was wrong.” The only case I’ve seen of them lobbying against a right to repair law was a problematic one. On the whole they’re absolutely for them.
Ah well.
I stand by this piece and I stand by CTA doing a ton of really great work. I get that you live in a fantasy world where everyone is “good” or “bad” but some of us live in the real world where we agree on some things and disagree on others. CTA has gone tremendous good for the world over the years.
When you grow up and realize the world is not the Manichean world you wish it to be, feel free to come back and discuss real issues, otherwise perhaps Harry Potter fandom boards are more your speed.
So much of this is Stupid
They want the server owners. Google. AWS and 1-2 others.
FOR WHAT?
Practicing the SAME things as the Gov. has and the Commercial market learned FROM THEM?
70-80% chance an incident will be made to happen that will give them a foot hold in this.
Unless they can Bypass it, kick it out, Capture the situation, Hide it until needed.
WHO OWNS the backbone? 3-4 of the largest Intrernet server companies.
No evidence BLAME GAME.
Get them fighting and searching for WHAT aint there, Until its planted.
For anyone that dont understand the internet. Consider it a Collection of apartment buildings. Each Building has Room, Servers, nodes. What it breaks down to is this. They have access to Everything, Down to your computer, and in the Lic. you signed is a KINDA promise that they will NOT Look Directly at your computer. But they can.(psst. Look up Honey pot).
To be exact, many of you have had Bad things happen to your computer, and one of them is to open a backdoor into your machine. All it takes is a Script. Windows and Currnt OS. have done very well in hiding it and verifying that it NOT get turned on.
So who is in for Hide the Penny? Who is going to make a outrageous Comment attributed to no one specific. to get the rabbit hunt going?
If parents really want to protect their children, then they’d do something about the “toy industry.” No operation abuses children more than the toy industry. But doing so would put a severe hitch in how most parents raise their kids now, which amounts to little more than “hey, go play with your toys” (while the parents devote time to themselves). And as the kids get older, their toys get replaced with newer toys–tech gadgets and the online ecosystem that hinders personal growth more than supports it.