The conversation around social media addiction has gained renewed momentum following a recent lawsuit settlement involving Snapchat in Los Angeles, California. The case was filed by a 19-year-old who alleged that the platform intentionally engineered its algorithms and features to encourage compulsive use, negatively affecting his mental health.
According to reporting by The New York Times, lawyers for the teenager argued that major social media companies have downplayed or concealed the risks associated with prolonged usage. They highlighted features such as infinite scrolling, automatic video playback, and algorithm-driven recommendations as design choices that keep users engaged for extended periods, with possible links to depression, eating disorders, and other psychological challenges.
Why Snap Backed Down While Others Didn’t
Snap was not the only company named in the lawsuit. Other platforms cited included Meta, alongside TikTok and YouTube.
However, Snap was the only defendant to reach a settlement. Reports indicate that the decision was influenced by internal company documents and employee testimonies dating back nearly a decade, which reportedly showed early warnings about the potential impact of Snap’s algorithms on teenagers’ mental well-being.
The legal argument echoed the historic “Big Tobacco” cases of the 1990s, when cigarette manufacturers were accused of hiding evidence about the dangers of smoking.
Understanding Addiction Beyond Technology
Mental health experts generally agree that addiction, whether behavioural or substance-related, is rarely caused by a single factor. Instead, it emerges from a complex interplay of psychological, social, and environmental influences.
While social media exposure can play a role, other contributors include peer pressure, unresolved trauma, stress, depression, early access to digital platforms, and socio-economic pressures. The widespread acceptance of social media as a core part of modern life has further intensified its influence, embedding it deeply into daily routines across the globe.
This complexity raises an important question: if addiction has multiple drivers, why are technology companies receiving most of the criticism? Some argue that singling out platforms is comparable to blaming alcohol producers for alcoholism or holding tobacco companies solely responsible for smoking dependence.
Shared Responsibility: Parents, States, and Society
Because many of these legal actions involve teenagers—who are still legally minors—it is understandable that responsibility should not rest entirely on young users. However, this also brings into focus the roles of parents, families, schools, and governments in safeguarding minors.
Around the world, regulators are responding. In December 2025, Australia became the first country to ban social media access for children under 16. The restriction applies to platforms such as TikTok, Alphabet’s Google and YouTube, as well as Meta’s Facebook and Instagram. Companies that fail to comply face penalties of up to $33.3 million.
In 2026, Malaysia introduced similar restrictions, preventing users under 16 from creating social media accounts. France requires parental consent for users under 15, though enforcement has proven difficult. Germany mandates parental approval for users aged 13 to 16, while critics say safeguards remain weak. The United Kingdom is also exploring an Australia-style ban, with debates ongoing about raising the minimum age threshold.
Steps Platforms Say They’re Taking
Social media companies maintain that they are actively addressing concerns around youth safety. TikTok, for instance, has rolled out features that allow users to filter content, mute specific keywords, and limit exposure to potentially harmful material. Its family pairing tool enables parents to manage screen time, control interactions, and decide who can view or comment on their children’s posts.
These protections are primarily aimed at users aged 13 to 15. Similarly, YouTube operates a separate child-focused service, YouTube Kids, which offers parents comprehensive control over content and usage.
Why Core Features Remain Under Scrutiny
Despite these efforts, prosecutors continue to target foundational design elements such as infinite scroll, push notifications, auto-play, and recommendation algorithms. They argue that these features are inherently addictive and should be restricted or redesigned.
Technology companies counter that such features are comparable to editorial decisions made by traditional media outlets and are therefore protected as free expression under the First Amendment in the United States.
The Road Ahead
To date, no major social media platform has lost a social media addiction lawsuit in court, reinforcing confidence among tech companies in their legal defences. However, an adverse ruling could have far-reaching consequences, potentially triggering billions of dollars in penalties and forcing sweeping changes in platform design.
Ultimately, whether accountability lies primarily with social media companies, parents, regulators, or society as a whole, or is shared among all, remains unresolved. What is certain is that the global debate over social media addiction and youth mental health is only intensifying.
