It could be argued that such trolling can cause circumstantial damage or emotional damage, through intermediaries, with an example that takes a couple of weak steps in reasoning.

It could be argued back that this is circumstantial, and therefore not caused knowingly by the troll, and the example taken apart by all those weak points by giving them actual numbers for their probability.

Then it could be counter-argued again that the amount of possible circumstances or possible combinations of circumstances that would bring about some form of damage is such, compared to the circumstances that would not and the probabilistic facts of the trolling, that it ends up being more likely than not that at least one out of the incredibly many possible sets of circumstances will apply for any given instance of trolling.

I need a sanity check for motivated stopping here, but I don't see any good further counter-argument that I could steel-man and would show that this isn't a case of "trolling causes damage in a predictable manner", unless my prior that such damage would not occur in the absence of trolling is completely wrong.