Lawsuit Cornering Meta on "SNS Addiction"—Focus Shifts from Posts to the "System" Itself

A series of lawsuits involving Meta Platforms, which operates Facebook and Instagram, is gaining significant attention from the tech industry in the United States.

At the center of these lawsuits is the claim that the services are designed to keep children and young people using SNS for extended periods, potentially leading to addiction and mental health issues.

In past discussions about SNS, issues like defamation, illegal content, misinformation, and harmful advertising often focused on "what is posted on SNS."

However, the more critical aspect of the current lawsuits is that the focus has shifted from "content" to "product design."

Features like infinite scrolling that continuously display the next post.

Notifications sent to bring users back to the app.

Displays of "likes" and follower counts.

Recommendations that continuously present videos and posts of potential interest.

Feeds that allow uninterrupted viewing of short videos.

These features have enhanced the convenience of SNS and have been crucial mechanisms for the growth of the services.

On the other hand, if companies have prioritized "extending usage time" and continued designing with the awareness that it makes it difficult for minors, whose judgment is not fully developed, to stop using the service, these features may be evaluated not just as convenient but as "product designs that easily lead to addiction."

How the courts will judge this boundary remains to be seen.

The outcome could affect not only Meta but also the entire SNS industry, including TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat, and even the business model of smartphone apps themselves.

The Meaning of the $27 Million Settlement, Not Just "Meta Paid 2.7 Billion Yen"

One of the focal points in the current reports is the settlement of a lawsuit filed by the Breathitt County School District in Kentucky against SNS companies.

The school district claimed that services like Meta, TikTok, Snap, and YouTube used highly addictive technologies that worsened students' mental health, forcing the school to bear additional burdens such as counseling.

It has been reported that the total settlement amount paid by SNS companies was approximately $27 million.

It is important to note that while some reports collectively state "Meta and others paid $27 million," the breakdown reported indicates that Meta's individual burden was about $9 million, with Snap and TikTok each paying about $8 million, and YouTube about $2 million.

Of course, a settlement does not mean that the companies admitted to illegal activities or causality.

Given the risks of enormous legal fees, executive testimony, disclosure of internal documents, and reputational damage, it is not uncommon for companies to choose settlement even in "winnable cases."

Nevertheless, considering that this lawsuit was positioned as a "bellwether case" for predicting numerous future cases, the fact that SNS companies opted for settlement before full-fledged legal battles cannot be ignored.

Especially if more schools, municipalities, state governments, and individual plaintiffs make similar claims in the future, the "mass litigation risk" could weigh more heavily on corporate management than the compensation amount for each case.

How to View the $1.4 Trillion Figure

In the context of this lawsuit, an extremely large figure of up to $1.4 trillion has been mentioned.

This scale could potentially exceed 200 trillion yen in Japanese currency, an amount that is literally comparable to a national budget.

However, it is incorrect to understand this as "Meta has been decided to pay $1.4 trillion" at this point.

This is merely the largest possible figure anticipated based on the plaintiff's legal claims and penalty calculations, separate from the actual judgment or final payment amount.

The trial will first contest many points, such as whether Meta has legal responsibility, whether there is sufficient causality between the problematic design and the damage, and to what extent the company was aware of the risks.

Even if the plaintiffs win, the claimed amount may not be fully recognized.

Still, the reason the market is wary is not just because of the amount itself.

What is more significant for companies is the accumulation of judicial decisions that could apply a concept close to product liability to "the design of SNS itself."

If that becomes established, the issue will not be limited to past damages.

If the service design itself is not changed, new lawsuits could arise one after another.

The Significant Spark Left by Frances Haugen's Whistleblowing

A key figure in discussing this issue is Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee.

In 2021, she brought out a large amount of internal Facebook documents and testified before the U.S. Congress.

Haugen claimed that Facebook's management was aware of various problems caused by its services but failed to take adequate measures.

Particularly noteworthy was the relationship between young people and Instagram.

Through a series of reports and congressional testimonies known as the "Facebook Files," it became widely known that discussions about the safety and mental health of young people were taking place within Meta.

This is extremely significant for the current lawsuit.

In trials questioning corporate responsibility, whether the company "knew the danger" can become a major point of contention.

If the company was unaware of the risks, it could argue that the issues were "unpredictable at the time."

However, if internal documents show that the company was aware of the issues, it becomes easier for the plaintiffs to argue that "the company maintained the design prioritizing profit despite recognizing the danger."

Nonetheless, the existence of internal documents alone does not automatically confirm Meta's legal responsibility.

Mental health is influenced by many factors, including family environment, school life, friendships, economic conditions, and individual characteristics, making it still challenging to legally link specific SNS features to individual symptoms.

This "extent to which causality can be proven" is likely to become one of the major points of contention in future trials.

Meta is Also Advancing Measures

Meanwhile, Meta is not doing nothing.

In recent years, the company has introduced "Teen Accounts" on Instagram and strengthened safety settings for minors.

Features have been introduced to limit contact from unknown people, restrict displayed content, and require parental permission for users below a certain age to relax settings.

Meta claims to have developed safety features and parental tools over the years, arguing that attributing youth mental health issues solely to SNS oversimplifies the matter.

This rebuttal has a certain level of rationality.

Even if mental issues among young people are increasing across society, it is not easy to determine whether SNS "caused" them, whether existing issues "surfaced" on SNS, or whether multiple social factors are acting simultaneously.

Even if a correlation is found that "people who use SNS for longer tend to have mental issues," it does not prove that SNS is the cause.

There is also the reverse possibility that people with mental distress use SNS for longer periods.

This is why trials have difficulties distinct from scientific research.

SNS Reaction ① "Companies Are Designing for Addiction"

In discussions on SNS about this lawsuit, there are notably harsh opinions against platform companies like Meta.

On English-speaking forums like Reddit, opinions such as "Companies knew what they were doing" and "Algorithms aim to keep users on for long periods" are being posted.

Criticism, especially towards infinite scrolling, is strong.

In the past, SNS allowed users to set a boundary by checking all the posts from friends.

In current SNS, new posts are endlessly supplied through recommendations, so there is no clear endpoint.

Many users view this difference as problematic.

Extreme comparisons, such as "It should be regulated as an addictive product like tobacco or gambling," have even emerged.

In the Japanese-speaking X, reactions to posts introducing this series of lawsuits include sentiments like "The problem is that it's intentionally designed for children to use for long periods" and "This is not just overuse but a design issue."

Interestingly, the criticism is more directed at the "business model maximizing engagement" than "SNS itself."

Many free-to-use SNS earn revenue through advertising.

The longer users stay, the more ads can be displayed.

As a result,

"Making the service convenient"

and

"Keeping users on the service as long as possible"

become difficult to distinguish.

Voices criticizing this very structure are growing stronger.

SNS Reaction ② "Isn't There Also Parental Responsibility?"

On the other hand, there is strong opposition to blaming only SNS companies.

On SNS,

"Wasn't it the parents who gave smartphones to children?"

"Isn't it the family's role to manage usage time?"

"It's not right to place all the responsibility on companies"

are some of the opinions being expressed.

This is an unavoidable point in the current issue.

Even if SNS is addictive, who among companies, governments, schools, families, and individuals should bear responsibility, and to what extent?

In reality, it's not a problem that can be solved by a single entity.

Especially for minors, families can control many aspects, such as purchasing smartphones, creating accounts, usage time, and managing smartphones during bedtime.

However, simply arguing "parents should manage" is not sufficient.

There is a significant gap in information and technological power between a household guardian and a giant platform with billions of user data, using behavioral science and machine learning to optimize content that users are likely to respond to.

If companies are analyzing human psychology and advancing mechanisms to keep services used for long periods, it remains questionable whether it is appropriate to place that risk solely on families.

Is it corporate responsibility or family responsibility?

In reality, it's not an either-or situation; the question is how to combine both.

SNS Reaction ③ Concerns About Age Verification

Another noteworthy point is the caution towards "age verification" to protect children from SNS.

If regulations on SNS are strengthened, companies will need to accurately verify whether users are truly over 13 or 16 years old.

However, this might require providing identification, facial recognition, or credit card information to SNS companies or third-party companies.

On overseas SNS,

concerns like "It's troubling if society requires all users to submit IDs under the pretext of child safety"

and "It would mean giving more personal information to giant IT companies for age verification"

are being posted.

There is a difficult trade-off here.

If age verification is weak, children can easily falsify their age.

If age verification is strong, the privacy of users, including adults, might be compromised.

Balancing "safety" and "anonymity" is likely to become an unavoidable issue in Japan as well.

It's Not Just an "American Lawsuit" for Japan

From Japan's perspective, the massive lawsuits in the U.S. might feel distant.

However, the reality is the opposite.

In the "Survey on the Internet Usage Environment of Youth" conducted by the Children's and Families Agency for the fiscal year 2024, 98.2% of the surveyed youth reported using the internet.

Among high school students, the internet usage rate exceeds 99%.

Among internet users, the percentage using smartphones is 76.8% overall, reaching 83.6% among junior high school students and 98.2% among high school students.

For today's Japanese children, the internet is not a special space.

It has become part of everyday life.

Therefore, in Japan, merely debating "whether to allow SNS use or not" is not realistic.

Many activities, including school communication, interactions with friends, video learning, information gathering, hobbies, and club activities, are linked to smartphones.

What is needed is not "to prohibit or to allow freely," but rather a discussion on "what kind of design is appropriate to provide to children."

Will Japanese Regulations Also Shift from "Posts" to "Design"?

So far, Japan's internet policy has focused on addressing illegal and harmful information, defamation, personal information, dark part-time jobs, and fraudulent advertising.

All of these are important issues.

However, what the U.S. SNS lawsuits highlight is the problem one step before that.

Even if the content of the posts is