Navigating Torts in the Digital Age: When Social Media Conduct Leads to Legal Claims

Traditional tort law was developed in a world of face-to-face interactions. It was developed with the purpose of providing compensation for harm, deterring wrongful conduct, and ensuring accountability for violations to individual rights. However, the digital age has created new scenarios that often do not neatly fit within existing legal frameworks. This blog post explores how conduct on social media—be it intentional or accidental—can lead to tort claims such as defamation, right of publicity, or even battery, and how courts might apply tort law —sometimes even unusually— to address these modern challenges.

Torts and Social Media: Where the Two Intersect

Some traditional tort claims, like defamation, may seem to naturally extend to social media. However, at the beginning of the social media age, courts struggled with how to address wrongful conduct on social media that harmed individuals, requiring creative legal thinking to apply existing laws to the digital world..

1. Battery in the Digital Space: Eichenwald v. Rivello

One of the most compelling cases that pushes the boundaries of tort law is Eichenwald v. Rivello. The parties are Kurt Eichenwald, a journalist with epilepsy, and John Rivello, a social media user. Eichenwald publicly disclosed his epilepsy and happened to be a frequent critic of certain political and social issues. Rivello —likely motivated by animosity toward Eichenwald, due to his public commentary on political issues— sent Eichenwald a tweet with a GIF containing flashing strobe lights designed to trigger his epilepsy, with the accompanying message, “You deserve a seizure for your post.” When Eichenwald opened his Twitter notifications, he suffered a seizure as a result of the GIF. This case posed a novel issue of law at the time: can sending a harmful image online constitute physical contact?

Despite the fact that battery traditionally required physical contact, the Court in Eichenwald held that Rivello’s conduct met the elements of battery. The strobing GIF made indirect contact with Eichenwald’s cornea, undeniably causing him harm. In this case, the Court had to stretch traditional tort principles to accommodate claims arising from digital conduct.

2. Defamation and the Viral Nature of Social Media

Another tort commonly seen in social media cases is defamation. With the ability to share statements quickly with a wide audience, defamation claims have become the primary claim seen arising out of social media interactions. One situation we can analyze under this claim is the ‘Central Park Karen’ incident. In 2020, a bystander recorded Amy Cooper’s altercation with an African American birdwatcher and shared it online where it went viral. Following the incident, her employer, Franklin Templeton, made a public statement condemning racism and Cooper was fired.

Cooper sued for defamation, arguing that the viral video and public statements caused harm to her reputation. Unfortunately for her, the Court dismissed her claim, reasoning that the employer’s statements were opinions, which are protected under the First Amendment. The controversy serves as a cautionary tale, not only warning people about their online behavior, but also their actions in public. Videos of behaviors in public now are subject to recordings that can spread like wildfire. Cooper herself writes that the video still haunts her to this day.

As exemplified in the dismissal of Cooper’s case, the key to defamation claims is distinguishing between factual statements, false statements, and opinions—especially in the context of social media, where free-flowing ideas and opinions can cause significant reputational harm. In the social media age, analyzing defamation claims requires balancing free speech with the protection of individuals’ reputations.

3. Cancel Culture and Tortious Interference with Business Relations

In the case of Amy Cooper, she has been what one would call “canceled,” but in the real world, rather than in the context of social media. The rise of cancel culture has posed a threat to influencers and public figures who often rely on brand deals and partnerships for their livelihoods. In many controversies, the “cancellation” is a result of fair criticism to the public figure. But what happens when it is the result of false or harmful misinformation spread online? While defamation may be one avenue, tortious interference with business relations might also come into play.

Imagine an influencer who becomes the target of a viral campaign based on photoshopped offensive tweets. As the “screenshots” roam the internet, the influencer’s followers drop, brand deals are canceled, and new partnerships become difficult to secure. Since the false information led to a disruption of business relationships, this may be a scenario giving rise to a claim for tortious interference, especially if the creation of that false information was done so maliciously, targeting the influencer’s success.

Tortious interference claims require showing that a third party intentionally caused harm to the plaintiff’s business relationships. In the context of social media, competitors or malicious individuals could spread misinformation that causes financial loss.

The Future of Torts and Social Media

As social media continues to influence how we communicate, courts face the challenge of adapting traditional tort law to address new types of harm in the digital age. While many no longer consider Social media a “new” concept, you can imagine that courts will have to similarly adapt old law to new technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence. Cases like Eichenwald v. Rivello demonstrate how legal frameworks can be stretched to accommodate harm caused by online conduct. Claims like defamation, tortious interference, and right of publicity claims highlight the real consequences of social media scandals. As we navigate social media spaces, it’s important for individuals—whether influencers, content creators, or casual users—to recognize when their actions cross the line into actionable torts. Understanding the potential legal consequences of online behavior, and even in public, is essential for avoiding disputes and protecting rights in this rapidly changing environment.