Social media sites succeed in part thanks to platform designs that keep people on the apps, but who should be held responsible when those designs allegedly harm young users?
Snap’s last-minute decision to settle a social media addiction lawsuit may have saved it from the consequences of undergoing a closely watched trial, but no social media company can escape the effects of the more extensive legal fight that could transform how platforms operate.
The lawsuit, filed in California by a 19-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., accuses Snapchat and other major social media apps of using addictive design features that fostered compulsive use and contributed to serious mental health problems. Snap announced the settlement at a court hearing in Los Angeles just days before jury selection was due to begin.
According to a BBC report, the company said the parties were “pleased” to resolve the matter, but did not reveal the terms of the agreement.
The case remains far from finished. Meta, TikTok owner ByteDance, and Google’s YouTube remain defendants and are still set to go to trial later this month. Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify, and until Snap settled, its own chief executive, Evan Spiegel, was also set to take the stand. None of the remaining companies commented on Snap’s decision.
A new legal tactic puts platform design on trial
The lawsuit’s focus distinguishes it from earlier challenges to social media companies. Rather than blaming harmful user-generated content, the plaintiff argues that the platforms themselves are the problem, specifically their design.
The lawsuit represents one of the first serious attempts to hold social media companies liable for how their platforms are built. The plaintiff maintains that social media features such as algorithmic recommendations, notifications, and infinite scrolling were intentionally engineered to increase user engagement, creating compulsive usage patterns and addiction-like behaviors that worsened depression, self-harm, anxiety, and eating disorders.
That argument challenges a legal defense tech companies have used since the dawn of the internet. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, platforms are generally shielded from liability for harms arising from user-generated content. But judges overseeing the consolidated addiction cases have suggested that product design may fall outside those protections, opening the door to personal injury claims.
For Snap, settling avoids being the first company to test that theory in front of a jury. Legal analysts say that does not necessarily indicate guilt, but it does shed light on the risks of letting a novel legal argument play out in the courtroom.
From US courtrooms to global pressure
For years, tech companies have argued that evidence linking social media use to mental health harm is inconclusive. But regulators, judges, and now juries are increasingly being asked to decide whether the cumulative impact of platform design choices tells a different story.
Thousands of similar lawsuits brought by teenagers, school districts, and state attorneys general are moving through US courts. Plaintiffs argue that internal documents show social media executives understood the risks to teen mental health, but continued to push engagement-driven features that increased time spent on apps.
If juries simply accept the argument that social media platforms are inherently defective products, the consequences could be significant. Beyond potentially massive financial damages, companies could be forced to rework some of the core mechanics of their apps, prompting changes that would spread across the entire social media industry.
This legal pressure in the US is unfolding as governments around the world move to impose their own limits, especially when it comes to the influence of platforms on children. Australia recently enacted the world’s first nationwide ban on social media use for children under 16, causing a constitutional challenge from Reddit and discourse over free speech and age verification.
In Europe, lawmakers are pushing for stricter age limits and restrictions on what they describe as addictive or manipulative design features directed at minors.
Transforming future timelines
As the tech landscape evolves, these cases and policies indicate a larger shift in how governments view social media. Though tech companies were once framed as neutral platforms for online communication, they are now increasingly being viewed as product makers whose design decisions can carry real-world public health consequences.
Snap may have sidestepped this first trial, but it is still facing other addiction-related lawsuits. And as Meta, TikTok, and YouTube prepare to defend themselves in court, the industry may experience an outcome that could define its legal and moral responsibilities for years to come.
Also read: TikTok age verification is getting stricter across the EU as TikTok rolls out new tools to identify underage accounts.
