Social Media Addiction Trial Begins, With Stakes for Youth Online Safety Debate
In February 2025, the first in a series of class action trials began against several social media platforms. Plaintiffs allege the companies deliberately designed their products to be addictive and knew they were harming minors. These cases—brought by minors, parents, and school districts—are separate from lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of laws limiting young people’s access to technology. Still, they are likely to shape the broader debate over youth online safety and could significantly affect how social media platforms design their products.
Is there such a thing as social media addiction?
Much of this litigation centers around the debate over “social media addiction,” particularly from significant use by teens or even younger users. As my colleague Dr. Jeff Singer has written, there is no medical classification of social media addiction, and to claim so would have consequences not only for the technology but for the medical community. He’s not alone in pushing back against these claims.
Others, including psychiatrist Sally Satel, have pushed back against claims of “addiction.” Even the plaintiff’s own therapist stated she never reported feeling addicted and actually found social media to be a creative outlet. Like any product we enjoy, some individuals will consume more of it than perhaps they should. But just like we don’t ban kids from buying candy bars because some might be “addicted to sugar” (which similarly is not a medical addiction), instead we provide guidance to young people and parents to help them make the choices that might meet their particular needs and preferences.
This is particularly true for social media, given the number of resources like sleep mode or time limits available to both users and parents who want to limit or be aware of their own usage, as well as various third-party and in-app features to block or restrict problematic content.
What, if anything, it means to be “addicted” to social media may be pivotal to this case– so we should be cautious about using the term. The level of proof to establish a medical addiction seems unlikely in this case, based on the facts so far. For example, the plaintiff’s use of YouTube averaged less than 30 minutes per day, and a small portion (less than 5 minutes) was the result of features like autoplay. Those numbers are likely a small portion of the entertainment and activities of your typical child or teenager.
The court may approach these claims using a broader, less clinical understanding of “addiction.” Instead of focusing strictly on scientific definitions, it could examine whether alleged product defects caused harm—either as a “but-for” cause of mental health problems or as a substantial contributing factor, even if not the sole cause. Such a finding would still have a significant impact on both the possible features of social media products and the potential litigation around youth online safety laws, as discussed later in this piece.
The role of the parents
Many aspects of the case will focus on what the social companies knew or should have known about young users on their platforms and the impact of their products. For example, headlines have focused on claims that Meta’s own research said that parental supervision was insufficient to curb teen use. However, the research in question was focused on children in difficult situations. As such, the data and parental relationships are likely more complicated, and in some cases may reflect a more complex situation than just the use of social media. In some of these cases, social media might be beneficial in helping young people who are struggling with certain aspects of their identity, as has been seen in the LGBTQ community.
Parents can and should have a role in helping their teens have positive experiences online. But it can be easy to blame social media or technology rather than look more deeply at complex situations. While teens may try to outsmart their parents’ restraints in both the online and offline world, there are a variety of tools to help provide guidance both on platforms and outside of them. As YouTube’s testimony in this case noted, many of those features were not turned on.
While teens may push the limits, parents and other trusted adults are in the best position to help kids and teens navigate the world and respond if they find themselves in a harmful situation.
What the litigation could mean for the debate around youth online safety
As mentioned, challenges are ongoing to state laws that seek to require age verification or other elements that would limit how online platforms engage with content on the grounds of protecting kids and teens from the harms plaintiffs allege in this case. These challenges, largely brought by NetChoice, focus on the First Amendment impact of these laws on adult users and the platforms. A ruling in the litigation by private plaintiffs against the social media companies will not directly change the outcomes of such cases; however, it could still have consequences for innovation and the underlying debates around such laws.
A finding against the plaintiffs in this case would further support that while any individual may have a negative outcome, social media itself is not inherently harmful. This would make it even more difficult for a state or the federal government to show it has an interest in enacting policy in the name of protecting minors, particularly given the privacy and speech consequences.
A finding for the plaintiffs, however, is not an immediate sign that states could restrict minors’ access to social media without violating broader free expression rights. The state would still have to prove that the interest is compelling and balanced against the impact on the First Amendment rights of adults and platforms, to meet the appropriate level of scrutiny. This means that the state would have to show the government, not parents, has an important or compelling interest in restricting minors’ speech. Additionally, courts would still have to contend with the impact on adult users’ rights to anonymous speech or access to information. While a finding for the plaintiffs might further support state lawmakers’ concerns, it would not immediately render the laws under challenge constitutional.
A finding for the plaintiffs would probably more directly impact the features available on social media platforms. This can include the use of algorithms or autoplay. While some might find a change in defaults beneficial, these features have also allowed discovery, discourse, and positive experiences. The impact of such a ruling would reach far beyond the entities subject to litigation. So, before you cheer the loss of a feature like autoplay, consider what it means for the parent on the long car ride with a six-year-old each time the episode of Bluey finishes.
Conclusion
Cases involving young people who lost their lives or had other negative experiences on social media are heartbreaking. It is important that we help youth learn to navigate social media and other digital tools in a positive way. While headlines may trot out scary statistics or claims of addiction, it is important to look at the complicated matters involved in such a case.
The companies involved and many that are not have taken steps to respond to public concerns. Findings against the companies would not only impact the experiences of young people, but of all users. These claims could have significant ripple effects stretching into addiction management or political speech.
“Bellwether” is a good term for this case, as the underlying decision will shape further debate around policy. While the underlying constitutional debate over age verification and other online restrictions will continue, the outcome and data presented in this case will also shape policy and policy discussions for users, innovators, and policymakers. However, it is important to consider the impacts not only on potential problematic use but also on benign and beneficial opportunities.