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