Tobacco industry demands protection from itself

Last March, a Los Angeles jury reached a historic verdict: it held Meta and Google liable for a woman's social media addiction. The judge awarded damages totaling six million dollars, including three million as compensation for the harm done and three million in punitive damages (intended to punish the defendant), because the jury found that both companies had acted with malicious intent. Meta was responsible for seventy percent of the damages, Google for thirty percent.[1] This is the first time a jury in the United States has awarded this type of damages to an individual user in a liability suit against a social media company. How does social media make us addicted? That social media addiction exists is now widely recognized. Platforms are built to keep users glued to the screen for as long as possible: infinite scroll, notifications, likes: all design incentives and algorithmic recommendations that constantly cater to human tendencies. Research by Bits of Freedom, published in March 2026 and funded by the Creative Industries Incentive Fund, mapped those mechanisms. The researchers identified nineteen specific design types that facilitate online addiction, including endless scroll, gamification, social pressure and temporary content.[2] Bits of Freedom concluded that these are not accidental side effects, but all conscious choices by these social media platforms. Everything is set up with only one goal: addiction. Social media addiction is not yet recognized as a mental illness in the Netherlands,[3] which does not make the phenomenon any less real. That social media can cause damage is at least already visible in the Netherlands. Newcom's National Social Media Research 2026, conducted among more than six thousand respondents, shows that 2.6 million Dutch people feel less happy because of social media. 5.5 million are trying to reduce their use. Newcom sees a clear connection: more intensive use goes hand in hand with lower physical and mental well-being and greater demand for care.[4] Is there any legal action to be taken against these platforms in the Netherlands? The American ruling has no direct effect in the Netherlands. But it illustrates something that will also become legally relevant here: that platforms can be held responsible for the damage their products cause. In Europe, there is a legal basis for liability. Since Feb. 17, 2024, the Digital Services Act (DSA) has been in effect. This regulation requires large platforms to identify and mitigate the risks of their own algorithms. The AI Act, many of whose rules take effect on Aug. 2, 2026, additionally imposes obligations on systems that generate or recommend content. Further regulation is also expected from the upcoming European Digital Fairness Act in this context. Bits of Freedom suggests that this regulation should explicitly regulate addictive design, with an emphasis on autonomy and consent as a starting point. Consider, for example, the possibility for users to turn off addictive features. The first results of this legislation are already visible. On Feb. 6, 2026, the European Commission made a preliminary determination that TikTok, with its addictive design, potentially violates the DSA. In doing so, the Commission mentioned exactly the mechanisms that have been in the public debate

You chose the Ballerine because you think it will protect you. But then it happens: you get an unwanted pregnancy. Or the IUD gets stuck in your uterus and cannot be easily removed. You have to undergo painful surgery with all its consequences. Women report to us with these problems. And they ask the same questions: why wasn't I warned? Could this have been prevented? Who is responsible? In this blog, we answer those questions. We look at the regulations surrounding producer liability and what is legally possible. When do we speak of product liability? The law states that a producer is liable for damages caused by a defective product. The victim does not have to first prove that the producer acted negligently. The producer has ‘strict liability’. Product liability thus revolves around whether a product is defective and whether it offered the safety one would expect. What matters is how the product was presented, how it is normally used and what was known about its safety at the time. On paper this sounds simple, but in practice with medical devices it is often more complicated. It takes expert reports - from a gynecologist, for example - to prove that a product was not safe. The difference between a medical device and a drug It makes a difference what kind of device was used. Different rules apply to the Ballerin than to, say, a hormone IUD. A hormone IUD (such as the Mirena) qualifies as a drug, but a copper IUD (such as the Ballerin) qualifies as a medical device. The approval requirements for medical devices are structurally different from those for drugs, and in several respects less onerous. A different system of market authorization, evidence, surveillance structure and pre-market control applies to both groups. An important difference is that for medical devices there is no centralized public pre-market control. A government body does not check the content before market authorization: that role is delegated to private parties. In the case of pharmaceuticals, however, a substantive assessment by a government body does take place before market authorization and a marketing authorization is required. The producer of a hormone coil must demonstrate through clinical trials that the drug is safe and effective, with a higher standard of proof. The producer of a copper IUD can suffice with a clinical evaluation based on existing evidence. Side effect monitoring is also different; the hormonal coil is subject to stricter pharmacovigilance requirements than the copper IUD. The hormone IUD/copper IUD distinction shows that similar-looking products with similar uses fall under different product safety regimes. Information not shared Medical devices may behave differently than expected after being introduced to the market. New reports from users and physicians may indicate complications, side effects or practical problems that were not initially anticipated. With the Ballerin, it became clear at one point that (i) more pregnancies were reported than anticipated and (ii) difficulties often existed during removal of the IUD because it was stuck in the uterus. This information was not shared with the