Don’t let trial lawyers bankrupt America’s tech sector

My guess is most people don’t recall their high school graduation. I probably wouldn’t remember mine either, if not for a single observation made by our class valedictorian.

My most esteemed classmate pronounced that, unlike previous generations where drifting apart was common, ours would be the first to remain connected forever. She cited the advent of social media and Facebook, which was then in its infancy. It was easy to roll our eyes back then — believing the words were merely meant to comfort an emotional crowd — but she was quickly proven so right. It’s no wonder she was valedictorian and I wasn’t!

Social media has enabled us to stay connected with friends and family so intimately you can go years without seeing a classmate or relative, yet immediately feel a sense of connection upon reuniting. It’s fostered free communication — including across much of the developing world — while providing a platform to promote personalized content and local businesses of every kind.

It’s unfortunate so many of these benefits now find themselves contested in the courts. For instance, the California State Court in Los Angeles recently ruled against Facebook and Google for allegedly having “defective products.” As the court saw it in K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., the “flaw” in these platforms is the simple fact people want to use them. The plaintiff alleged she suffered harm to her mental health due to excessive use. But when you factor in television, video games, and all manners of entertainment compete for our attention — and it’s hardly a secret that they do — one should deduce this isn’t a case of defective products, but rather, defective jurors.

It’s also worth noting — and remains extensively underreported — the plaintiff in this trial also sued and settled with TikTok and Snapchat, alleging they contributed to her mental decline as well. For those keeping score, this single endeavor resulted in lawsuits and potentially payouts from four different social media companies for purported harm. Essentially, we are expected to believe any interface with a screen ruined the plaintiff’s life.

Much could be speculated regarding the role the plaintiffs’ parents played in enabling such supposedly excessive behavior. After all, it is well within a parent’s duty and responsibility to monitor their children — whether they are consuming junk food, watching television, playing video games, or engaging in any other behavior deemed detrimental to their development. Allegedly, in this case, the plaintiff even created “burner” accounts to like and comment on her own posts. One might infer from this the parents didn’t have much interest in monitoring their child’s social media activities — no algorithmic change can solve that.

But moving beyond the topic of parental responsibility is the dangerous precedent this sends for American innovation. Trial lawyers have seized on this judgment and, akin to sharks smelling blood in the water, believe themselves to have found a new feast attacking America’s tech sector. A trial involving similar allegations is already underway in Massachusetts.

These efforts should be rejected forcefully and called out for what they are — frivolous. Courts cannot allow disingenuous attorneys to enrich themselves off the backs of the very companies we depend on for America’s global leadership in technology more broadly. Given the fight for AI dominance, the stakes here are far too high to allow such claims to proceed.

Parents don’t need more laws or courts to know they should limit their child’s screen time. No matter what the lawyers say.

Originally published on Cagle.