TikTok and Snap settle as social media addiction trial begins

TikTok and Snap have agreed to settle a closely watched product liability case just as jury selection was set to begin in Los Angeles Superior Court, marking a significant moment in the growing legal battle over social media's impact on children and teenagers. The settlements come as Meta and YouTube remain defendants in what is expected to become a landmark trial that could reshape how social media companies operate and potentially cost them billions in damages.

Snap reached its settlement agreement a week before TikTok's deal was announced. Both companies decided to exit the case rather than proceed to trial, where they would have faced a jury in one of several so-called bellwether cases designed to test the legal landscape around social media addiction claims. The plaintiff in the Los Angeles case, a woman from Chico, California, alleged she became addicted to social media starting in elementary school.

Background

The social media addiction lawsuits represent a new legal frontier. There are currently at least 2,500 cases pending in state and federal courts, consolidated into what lawyers call a multidistrict litigation, or MDL. The cases involve families, school districts, and individuals who claim social media platforms were deliberately designed to be addictive and caused serious harm to young users.

The allegations center on specific features that plaintiffs say were engineered to keep users engaged. These include endless scrolling, algorithmic content loops that automatically feed users more material, data tracking systems, and variable reward mechanisms similar to those used in gambling. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue these features exploit how adolescent brains work, triggering the same dopamine responses associated with addiction to drugs and gambling.

Families have filed cases describing severe mental health crises in their children. Recent lawsuits detail teenagers who developed depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and self-harming behaviors that families attribute to compulsive social media use. One wrongful death case filed this week alleges a 17-year-old girl from Missouri became addicted to Snapchat and TikTok around age 10 or 11, developed severe depression, and eventually took her own life.

The litigation has drawn comparisons to the legal battles against tobacco companies and opioid manufacturers. Mental health professionals and researchers have documented a spike in teen suicides and eating disorders, with some studies suggesting social media plays a contributing role.

Key Details

The Los Angeles case serves as a test case for how juries might view these claims. Snap and TikTok's decisions to settle before trial began suggest the companies wanted to avoid the risk of a jury verdict that could establish legal precedent affecting the hundreds of other pending cases.

"This settlement should come as no surprise because that damning evidence is just the tip of the iceberg," said Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project, an industry watchdog group. "This was only the first case — there are hundreds of parents and school districts in the social media addiction trials that start today."

Meta Platforms, which owns Instagram and Facebook, and Google, which owns YouTube, have chosen to proceed to trial. Their attorneys are expected to argue that social media addiction is not a formally recognized clinical diagnosis, making it difficult to prove the companies are legally responsible for harm. They also plan to rely on legal defenses including Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a decades-old law that shields internet companies from liability for content users create and share. Meta and YouTube's lawyers also argue the First Amendment protects their right to operate their platforms as designed.

However, a California state judge recently rejected attempts by these companies to dismiss failure-to-warn claims, ruling that Section 230 and the First Amendment do not shield them from liability for their own app features. The judge found that claims focusing on allegedly addictive design elements like endless scrolling and data tracking are distinct from claims about third-party content.

The legal arguments

Plaintiffs' attorneys say the companies knew their platforms were harmful to young users and chose profit over safety. Internal documents from the companies, according to lawyers representing families, show executives were aware of the addictive potential and mental health risks but proceeded anyway.

The defendants counter that distinctions exist between platforms. YouTube's attorneys have argued their video-sharing site should not be grouped with social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok. Plaintiffs' lawyers dispute this, noting that YouTube has the youngest user base of any platform and often serves as a gateway to broader social media use.

What This Means

The settlements remove two major defendants from the bellwether trial but do not resolve the underlying legal questions. If Meta and YouTube face an unfavorable jury verdict, it could accelerate settlements in the remaining cases and establish that social media companies can be held liable for harm caused by their design choices.

The case also reflects shifting public opinion about social media. Recent polling shows roughly half of teenagers believe social media is bad for people their age. Many say it interferes with sleep and productivity, with some reporting it has hurt their grades or mental health. California public schools have begun banning phones in classrooms, and numerous private schools have imposed strict limits on social media use.

The trial will require jurors to weigh complex questions about whether dangers to young users are incidental to social media's operation or inherent to how these platforms are designed. The outcome could influence how tech companies build their products going forward and whether they face financial consequences for past decisions.