The continuous exposure to negative or distressing news online, widely known as doomscrolling, has become a well-recognised phenomenon with significant psychological and social implications. Anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and social isolation are increasingly associated with the systematic consumption of such content.

Beyond its psychological dimension, the phenomenon raises substantial legal questions, particularly as to whether digital platforms bear responsibility for how content is presented and whether excessive exposure may give rise to claims for the protection of personality rights.

Personality rights, algorithms and liability

Under Cypriot and European law, the right to personality extends beyond physical integrity to include mental health and psychological well-being.

Continuous exposure to alarmist or catastrophic news could, under certain conditions, be considered an infringement of these protected interests. In cases where a diagnosable psychological harm is established, liability based on tort law cannot be ruled out.

The key issue remains causation, whether the harm can be directly attributed to exposure to specific content and whether such exposure resulted from algorithmic promotion rather than purely personal choice.

Proving this causal link presents a significant challenge for legal theory and case law. This is particularly true in Cyprus, where no relevant jurisprudence on doomscrolling has yet developed, substantiating such claims is likely to become an area of future judicial evolution.

At the core of the phenomenon lie the algorithms of digital platforms, which operate with the objective of maximising user engagement.

It is empirically established that negative content generates higher levels of interaction, leading to its further amplification. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle in which users are exposed to increasingly intense content.

The business model of these platforms is based on user attention as a commodifiable resource. Prolonged user engagement translates into increased advertising revenue, indirectly encouraging the promotion of emotionally charged content.

Within this context emerges the concept of “design liability”, referring to responsibility for how content delivery systems are structured and operate.

European framework and freedom of expression

The Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces a new framework of obligations, including the assessment and mitigation of systemic risks. The impact of algorithms on mental health may fall within these risks, requiring platforms to adopt appropriate mitigation measures.

At the same time, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes limits on automated decision-making and user profiling, enhancing transparency in algorithmic practices.

European case law has already moved away from viewing platforms as neutral intermediaries.

In Delfi AS v. Estonia, the European Court of Human Rights recognised platform liability due to insufficient content moderation. Similarly, in Google Spain, the Court of Justice of the European Union highlighted the responsibility of service providers in managing information.

However, regulation must also take into account Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression. This right is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions for the protection of health and the rights of others.

The challenge lies in achieving a balance without sliding into censorship, with emphasis placed on the manner of content promotion rather than the content itself.

Misinformation, public health and future regulation

The spread of negative news is often linked to practices such as misinformation and clickbait. Increased traffic translates into revenue, reinforcing a model that favours intensity and fear.

Headlines that create a sense of urgency or alarm can influence user behaviour and lead to poor decision-making, raising issues of deception and consumer protection.

The European Union increasingly recognises mental health as a matter of public policy. Excessive exposure to negative digital content may become subject to further regulation, including enhanced transparency, user control tools and “digital well-being” obligations.

The phenomenon of doomscrolling cannot be attributed solely to individual user responsibility; it is a structural feature of the digital economy.

In this context, the need emerges for the establishment of a “duty of digital care”, whereby platforms are required to consider the impact of their algorithms.

The question is no longer whether platforms influence our behaviour, that is now taken for granted. The real issue is whether, and to what extent, the law will require them to assume responsibility for how they do so.