{"id":6240,"date":"2019-04-01T21:41:18","date_gmt":"2019-04-02T01:41:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=6240"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:25","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:25","slug":"children-and-internet-addiction-who-is-liable-for-damage-caused-by-excessive-screen-time","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/children-and-internet-addiction-who-is-liable-for-damage-caused-by-excessive-screen-time\/","title":{"rendered":"Children and Internet Addiction: Who is Liable for Damage Caused by Excessive Screen Time?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n


Adults who smoke have been compensated<\/a> for negative health effects of smoking, when the side effects of smoking were not fully and properly explained.\u00a0 An adult who doesn\u2019t follow a safety label on a piece of heavy equipment because it is not noticeable enough<\/a> can bring a lawsuit if they are injured when using that product.\u00a0 But what about the side effects of excessive screen time?\u00a0 Recent studies have reported that children can be permanently damaged by spending too much time in front of a screen, whether that is a phone, tablet or computer.\u00a0 There is another element, that unlike an adult- who has the capability to avoid the negative side effects of choices they freely made (at least prior to the addictive effects becoming overwhelming), a child has no such opportunity.\u00a0 So who is responsible for the negative effects?\u00a0 Are the parents or guardians liable, because they allowed their child to use a device for an extended period of time?\u00a0 Or are the content providers, who create programs and games that lure kids into spending hours and hours on their device?\u00a0 And either way, how could damages be assessed and appropriate compensation calculated?<\/p>\n\n\n

Could a child who suffers from excessive exposure to media through a screen later sue in a tort action?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n

A recent study<\/a> found that on average, children under 5 are spending between 2-3 hours every day in front of some sort of screen, whether that is a television, laptop, tablet, or phone.\u00a0 Long hours spent in front of a screen every day can lead to \u201cpoorer performance on \u2026 developmental measures.\u201d\u00a0 The study recommends that parents follow guidelines on the \u201cappropriate amount of screen exposure and discuss potential consequences of excessive screen use.\u201d\u00a0 Another study<\/a> also finds that children who might be more in need of parental or peer interaction, such as those in economically challenged households, are in front of screens more than average.\u00a0 The American Association of Pediatricians<\/a> recommends that children aged 2-5 use technology no more than 1 hour per day \u201cto allow children ample time to engage in other activities important to their health and development\u201d since excessive screen time not only leads to developmental difficulties but obesity rates and sleep problems.\u00a0 However, these conclusions are not without competing hypotheses, as a recent British study<\/a> found that there \u201cis not enough evidence to confirm that screen time is in itself harmful to child health at any age.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n

Could a child who suffers from excessive exposure to media through a screen later sue in a tort action?\u00a0 Negligent parenting has long been held<\/a> to be a tortious act, and since in the eyes of some<\/a>, smartphones represent an \u201cabdication of parental responsibility,\u201d perhaps the provision of a device and allowance of excessive time on it to a child could constitute negligence.\u00a0 The problem<\/a> is widespread, over 47% of parents think their child is \u201caddicted\u201d to their screen, (while 32% of parents think they themselves are addicted as well).<\/p>\n\n\n

What then about the liability of both device-makers and content providers who have created products which enable and potentially even lure children to spend excessive time in front of a screen?\u00a0 Tech companies have every incentive<\/a> to maximize the time customers are using their hardware or software, but does or should that same rationale justify when applied to (non-paying) children?\u00a0 While \u201cserious legal threats or class action lawsuits have not yet emerged around smartphone addiction \u2026 both Google and Apple have taken steps to address the issue<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 These steps include providing parents reports on how much a device is used, limits on how long apps are open, and reminders to users to take a break from their devices.<\/p>\n\n\n

If a tech company or parent is liable for damage to a child because of excessive screen time, how would such damage be calculated?\u00a0 A guide could be found in loss of consortium claims of children against those found liable for the death of the child\u2019s parent.\u00a0 As an example<\/a> of a 1979 case in Massachusetts, a \u201cchild has a right to recover for loss of a parent\u2019s society and companionship through a defendant\u2019s negligence if the child is a minor who is dependent on the parent both economically and in filial needs for closeness, guidance, and nurture.\u201d\u00a0 Similarly, a portion of the parental nurturing the child would have received if not for the addictive device could be calculated.<\/p>\n\n\n

Would a child ever bring such a claim?\u00a0 If the damage was great enough to any individual, the chances of a tort suit for negligent screen time allowance or against an addictive device company could be in the future. <\/p>\n\n\n

Alex Rutgers, 25 March 2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Adults who smoke have been compensated for negative health effects of smoking, when the side effects of smoking were not fully and properly explained.\u00a0 An adult who doesn\u2019t follow a safety label on a piece of heavy equipment because it is not noticeable enough can bring a lawsuit if they are injured when using that …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6241,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6240"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6240"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6240\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6827,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6240\/revisions\/6827"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6241"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}