Exploring Legal and Human Rights Implications of Products 'Addictive by Design'

Addiction Economy Thought for Today - we are starting to research what the legal implications might be for products being designated as 'addictive by design' and whether the idea that companies might be deliberately 'undermining our ability to control the use of their products' some sort of red line crossed which can have a legal threshold for product liability and class actions.

It seems to have been a landmark decision for Tobacco, with the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (below) where the companies, agreed to pay $206 billion over the first 25 years.

"In exchange for amalgamating the growing number of lawsuits, the companies agreed to curtail or cease certain tobacco marketing practices, as well as to pay, in perpetuity, various annual payments to the states to compensate them for some of the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses. The money also funds a new anti-smoking advocacy group, called the Truth Initiative, that is responsible for such campaigns as Truth and maintains a public archive of documents resulting from the cases."

As we are still dying and I can't see how the NHS costs are covered in the UK, we are intrigued to understand if it might matter if example food and social media companies could be designated in that way.

If anyone has anything, love to know.

We are also exploring the interesting Human Rights Implications of that threshold to understand the work of Dr. Susie A. on Freedom of Thought and the broader term of 'Cognitive Liberty' from Nita Farahany and whether the deliberate decision to 'undermine our ability to control the use of our products' has serious legal implications for the companies under that aspect of the law too.

Exciting but brain aching, anyone any thoughts love to hear them!

https://lnkd.in/em4s37Wr