"Who is Responsible for 'Infinite Scroll'? The Sudden Conclusion of the U.S. Social Media Addiction Lawsuit"

The "Second Touchstone" That Disappeared Just Before the Start

A highly anticipated trial concerning young people's "social media addiction," which was scheduled to begin on July 27, 2026, in Los Angeles, USA, suddenly disappeared just before opening.

The plaintiff was a 15-year-old boy living in Florida, referred to as R.K.C. in court documents. The boy claimed that his compulsive long-term use of social media, including Instagram and Facebook, led to anxiety, depression, and even suicidal thoughts.

However, on July 22, the boy's side withdrew their claims against Meta, the operator of Instagram and Facebook.

Initially, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube were also defendants, but settlements had already been reached with these three companies under undisclosed terms. Meta was the last remaining defendant.

The boy's representative explained that there was anxiety about enduring a prolonged and harsh trial, and the boy wished to start treatment and regain a "normal life." Meanwhile, Meta emphasized that the lawsuit was withdrawn without any monetary compensation from the company, maintaining that the claims were baseless from the start.

It is important to note that since the trial did not take place, the jury did not reject the boy's claims, nor did it recognize Meta's legitimacy.

Legally speaking, "Meta's innocence" was not confirmed. The decision by the plaintiff not to continue the dispute meant that the case ended without the jury evaluating evidence or testimony.

For Meta, this can be seen as a clear achievement in avoiding the risk of payment and losing the case. However, the issue of responsibility regarding the design of social media and the mental health of young people has not disappeared.

Why the Boy Left the Courtroom

In lawsuits against companies, withdrawals and settlements often cannot be explained by simple wins and losses.

Especially when the plaintiff is a minor and mental health issues or treatment history are at stake, the individual may face a detailed investigation into their life, medical records, family environment, school life, friendships, and device usage history over a long period.

During cross-examination, the boy could have faced tough questions about whether the cause of his distress was something other than social media, whether his usage matched his description, or whether other services or his family environment had any influence.

According to reports, Meta was prepared to argue that the boy's average usage time on Facebook and Instagram was less than 10 minutes a day, and there were only about six months between account creation and filing the lawsuit.

This was considered a crucial point to undermine the causal relationship between the "long-term compulsive use" claimed by the boy and the services provided by Meta.

However, based on the currently available information, it is not possible to determine the overall usage time, including TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube, or the extent to which each service affected the boy.

For the boy's side, having already reached settlements with three companies, there was a realistic question of how beneficial it would be to continue the exhausting trial against Meta.

On the other hand, for Meta, avoiding a new jury judgment regarding its product design was significant. From each party's perspective, their decisions could be seen as rational litigation strategies.

Why This Trial Was Noteworthy

This case held significance beyond a single boy's claim for damages.

In the United States, numerous lawsuits are underway in both state and federal courts, alleging that social media companies designed their services to keep minors engaged for long periods without adequately warning of the dangers.

This case was one of the "bellwether trials" testing these common issues.

A bellwether trial is a representative case selected from many similar cases to be tried first, allowing judges and juries to evaluate evidence, expert testimony, and legal arguments.

One verdict does not automatically decide other cases. However, it strongly influences future settlement amounts, issue organization, witness selection, and risk assessment by companies.

Reuters reported that over 3,300 related lawsuits are proceeding in California state courts, with about 2,600 pending in federal courts.

Therefore, the fact that the second representative case did not proceed to a jury trial provides Meta with some relief.

However, other representative cases are scheduled in Los Angeles, and lawsuits in federal courts, consumer protection lawsuits by state governments, and damage claims by school districts remain.

This withdrawal does not mark the end of the massive litigation group. It merely closed one of the many legal routes.

The Verdict in March Changed the Atmosphere

The background to the significant attention this case received includes a prior verdict issued in the same Los Angeles in March 2026.

The plaintiff in this trial was a 20-year-old woman who claimed that her compulsive use of Instagram and YouTube since her teenage years led to severe mental harm, including depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia.

The jury found negligence on the part of Meta and YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, and ordered a total compensation of $6 million. The reported breakdown was $4.2 million for Meta and $1.8 million for Google.

Both companies are contesting the judgment, with Meta proceeding with an appeal against the verdict.

The core of this verdict focused not merely on "harmful posts being published" but on the product design itself, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, notifications, and recommendations.

In responsibility discussions centered solely on user-posted content, platforms can more easily claim legal protection by arguing they are not responsible for third-party posts.

In contrast, the plaintiff argues that the mechanisms designed by the companies themselves made it difficult for users to stop using the service. The issue is not the content of the posts but the structure of the product that selects, arranges, and continuously displays that content.

However, a single verdict does not establish a legal standard.

For each plaintiff, it is necessary to prove which functions were used, for how long, and how they were linked to specific symptoms.

The fact of long usage time is not the same as the product design of a specific company causing the condition. This causal relationship barrier will remain a major point of contention in future trials.

Four Reactions Intersected on Social Media

The reactions on social media to the withdrawal of this lawsuit, as confirmed in publicly available posts, can be broadly divided into four trends.

However, it should be noted that these are not randomly sampled public opinion surveys. They are reactions from some users who posted after seeing the news and do not represent the opinion of society as a whole.

The first is sympathy for the boy.

There is a view that subjecting the 15-year-old plaintiff to weeks of trial and detailed testimony about his private life and mental state is harsh, and the decision to prioritize treatment should be respected.

This reaction evaluates the withdrawal not merely as "succumbing to a big company" but from the perspective of the minor's recovery.

The second is the voice that corporate responsibility should continue to be pursued.

On Reddit, opinions were posted that such lawsuits need to continue, at least to shed light on how social media companies interact with and encourage the use of children.

Even in posts before the trial began, discussions emphasized the opening of a path to examine platform design in court rather than the amount of compensation itself.

The third is a counterargument emphasizing the responsibility of the users themselves and their guardians.

The opinion is that not everything resulting from long-term SNS use can be attributed to companies, and management at home and personal choices should also be considered.

This stance varies. There are strong claims that companies bear no responsibility at all, while there are relatively moderate opinions that companies, families, schools, and individuals should share responsibility.

The fourth is speculation such as "Hasn't he already received payment behind the scenes?" or "Wasn't he pressured by the company?"

Such posts can indeed be found, but no evidence supporting these claims has been presented.

Meta has explained that there was no payment from the company to the boy. The terms of the settlements with the other three companies are undisclosed, so the amount and conditions the boy's side received from those companies are not clear.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was a secret settlement or coercion with Meta.

On social media, information gaps are easily filled with conspiratorial speculation. While there is no need to unconditionally believe the company's explanations, it is necessary to distinguish between facts confirmed by reporting and user imagination.

"SNS Breaks the Mind" Cannot Be Simplified

Regarding the relationship between young people's SNS use and mental health, there are studies supporting concerns, but not all users experience the same effects.

U.S. public health authorities introduce research results indicating that children and young people who use SNS for more than three hours a day have a higher risk of mental problems, including depression and anxiety symptoms.

At the same time, they emphasize that the solution should not be left solely to children and their guardians, but rather requires a comprehensive approach involving companies, policymakers, families, and researchers.

Meanwhile, the American Psychological Association organizes that the impact of SNS varies depending on age, developmental stage, self-regulation ability, content viewed, purpose of use, and family environment.

SNS can also be a place for isolated young people to find peers with similar concerns, access information about medical care and support, and express themselves.

The issue is not a simple binary choice of "use SNS or not."

What matters is who interacts with which features and content, in what mental state, and to what extent.

This is where the difficulty of the trial lies.

Even if a link with risk is shown at the group level, in individual cases, it is necessary to prove that the person's symptoms were caused by the design of a specific service.

Conversely, companies cannot escape accountability for mechanisms that may encourage compulsive use by merely citing the general notion that "effects vary by individual."

Are Meta's Safety Measures Sufficient?

In recent years, Meta has introduced "teen accounts" that automatically place teenage users under protective settings.

They have expanded features such as making accounts private, restricting who can contact them, managing displayed content, notifications about usage time, and supervision functions for guardians.

In 2026, they also announced enhancements in AI-based age estimation, age-appropriate content settings, and features allowing guardians to manage multiple services collectively.

These measures are a step forward.

However, the lawsuits question not only whether harmful content has been reduced.

The entire mechanism designed to extend stay time, such as notification frequency, designs eliminating the end of scrolling, systems for continuously displaying short videos, and recommendation systems offering the next content while predicting user reactions, is under scrutiny.

As long as corporate revenue is tied to opportunities to display ads, there is tension between "safety design to moderately curb usage" and "business motivation to extend usage time."

It will be necessary to scrutinize not only the addition of safety features but also the goals of recommendation systems for minors, initial notification settings, interventions in nighttime use, and mechanisms to encourage stopping use.

Who Benefited from the Withdrawal?

In the short term, Meta gained the most significant benefit.

They avoided the risks of losing the case, paying damages, disclosing internal documents, and facing harsh scrutiny of employees and executives.

The boy's side can also step away from prolonged courtroom battles and focus on treatment and rebuilding life, considering the settlements already reached with other companies.

On the other hand, for society as a whole, answers to important questions have been postponed.

To what extent could the causal relationship between the boy's usage and symptoms be proven?

Was Meta's product design within the normal range of promoting usage? Or did it exploit vulnerabilities specific to developmental stages, such as impulsivity and the need for approval among minors?

At what point should companies have recognized the risk, and what measures should they have taken?

These issues did not reach a public jury decision based on evidence.

Therefore, it is not appropriate to summarize this event as "the boy lost" or "Meta's correctness was proven."

Similarly, it is dangerous to speculate without basis that "big companies must have exerted pressure."

What can currently be confirmed is that the boy avoided the burden of the trial and withdrew his claims, Meta ended this individual case without payment, and thousands of related lawsuits continue to proceed.

The Next Focus Is on Design Changes Rather Than Compensation

What should truly be noted in future lawsuits is not just the amount of compensation.

It is whether courts and regulatory authorities will demand specific design changes for services aimed at minors.

Considerations include limiting notifications by default, curbing late-night use, improving age verification accuracy, and allowing third-party audits of recommendation algorithms.

Intervention when signs of compulsive use are detected, providing data to researchers, and limiting advertisements and recommendations targeting minors could also become important points of discussion.

Families also need to respond realistically.

Simply taking away smartphones might sever the relationships and support children build online.

It is important to confirm through dialogue with the individual whether their mood worsens after use, whether their sleep or school life is disrupted, or if they are unable to stop even when they want to.

Concentrating responsibility solely on companies, parents, or children will not solve the problem.

However, it is natural to question the accountability of platform companies, which know the structure of their products and usage data in detail and can change the behavior of millions at once.