Social media addiction and the future for claims

The rapid growth of social media use, particularly among younger demographics, has prompted increasing scrutiny of whether platforms may bear legal responsibility for harm caused by excessive or addictive use. While the concept of “social media addiction” remains medically and legally undefined in the UK, there is a clear trajectory toward potential negligence-based claims. 

Can a Duty of Care Arise?

At the core of any negligence claim lies the requirement to establish a duty of care. In the UK, courts assess this considering foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. From a legal perspective, once harm becomes reasonably foreseeable, the threshold for establishing a duty becomes lower. Platforms are increasingly aware of these risks, particularly in relation to algorithm-driven engagement.

Turning to proximity, this is where it becomes more complex. Unlike traditional defendants, social media companies operate at scale with indirect relationships to users. However, algorithmic curation creates personalised environments. Platforms actively design for engagement (notifications, infinite scroll, reward loops) and data profiling creates a more direct and arguably manipulative interaction. This begins to resemble a relationship of influence, particularly for minors or vulnerable users.

Whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose of a duty of care also requires consideration. The UK courts remain cautious about imposing broad duties on digital platforms, particularly where responsibility could be seen as resting with the user. There are also wider policy concerns about innovation and freedom of expression which may be a bar to a duty being imposed. However, this position is evolving, particularly as regulation increases.

The Role of the Online Safety Act 2023

The Online Safety Act (the Act) significantly alters the landscape. It introduces statutory duties on platforms to protect users from harm, including duties to mitigate risks to children; requirements to address addictive or harmful design features and enforcement powers for Ofcom.

While the Act does not directly create a right of action in negligence, it is highly relevant in three ways:

1. Standard of Care - Regulatory duties may inform what constitutes “reasonable conduct” for negligence purposes.
2. Evidence of Breach - Failure to comply with the Act’s obligations could be relied upon as evidence of breach.
3. Foreseeability - The Act reinforces that harms associated with platform design are known and recognised.
   
   

For insurers, this regulatory backdrop materially increases the likelihood of claimants successfully arguing that harm was foreseeable and preventable.

Potential claimant profiles and heads of loss

Likely claimants include children and teenagers, young adults with diagnosed psychiatric injury and vulnerable users, including those with pre-existing mental health conditions.

Claims are most likely to be framed as negligence (failure to prevent foreseeable harm); possibly product liability-style arguments (defective design features) and breach of statutory duty (indirectly, via the Act’s obligations).

The types of anticipated harm could include psychiatric injury, self-harm or related physical injury and economic losses (treatment costs, loss of earnings in severe cases). However, the evidential burden remains significant, particularly on causation.

Causation

This is the most significant barrier for claimants as social media is rarely the sole cause of harm. There could be multiple external factors (family, education, genetics) which complicate attribution. The courts will require demonstrable causal linkage, not mere correlation. 

Defendants would need to consider counter arguments to any potential claims, to include claimants voluntarily engaging with the platforms and warning systems or parental controls being available. 

International influence and litigation trends

The UK is not operating in isolation. In the US, litigation against major tech platforms is already progressing, with claims alleging deliberately addictive design, failure to protect minors and concealment of internal research on harm.

While the UK courts will not directly replicate US outcomes, these cases are potentially influencing claimant strategies, generating evidence that may be used cross-jurisdictionally and shape public and judicial attitudes.

While large-scale successful negligence claims for social media addiction have not yet materialised in the UK, the direction of travel is clear:

• Regulatory recognition of harm is now established
• Public awareness and political pressure are increasing
• Claimant firms are actively exploring routes to recovery.

For insurers, the key point is not whether claims will arise — but when they will reach sufficient maturity and evidential strength to succeed.

In summary, social media addiction sits at the intersection of technology, health, and legal accountability. For insurers, it represents a classic emerging risk: uncertain in the present, but with clear indicators of future claims potential.