"The core of these lawsuits is that internet and social media companies, including those owned by Meta and Google, should be held liable on the same theory famously used against Big Tobacco: that brands knowingly created an addictive product. But the analogy fails for one simple reason. Internet and social media companies are engaged in speech, protected by the 1st Amendment, while no constitutional right is involved in regulating cigarettes and other tobacco products."
"But you could say that about all forms of media. Books, including those for children, are often written with cliffhangers at the end of each chapter to keep people reading. Television series do the same, encouraging people to keep watching or even "bingeing" as long as they can last. Video games are obviously designed to keep people, including children, playing into the wee hours."
More than 2,500 lawsuits allege internet platforms intentionally design features to addict children, including a high-profile suit against YouTube and Instagram. Plaintiffs seek to apply the Big Tobacco theory that companies knowingly created addictive products. The analogy falters because social media platforms disseminate speech protected by the First Amendment, unlike tobacco regulation which involves no constitutional speech right. Many forms of media use hooks and design elements that encourage prolonged engagement, complicating liability claims. Holding media companies liable for content and algorithmic tailoring raises grave constitutional concerns and threatens broad restrictions on protected expression.
Read at Los Angeles Times
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]