TikTok and Snap Reach "Last-Minute Settlement" — In the Social Media Addiction Lawsuit, Only Meta and YouTube Remain in Court

TikTok and Snap Reach "Last-Minute Settlement" — In the Social Media Addiction Lawsuit, Only Meta and YouTube Remain in Court

1. The Structure of the Lawsuit Diverged by "Last-Minute Settlement"

The "SNS Addiction" lawsuit, which has garnered attention in the U.S., has taken a significant turn. TikTok has settled with the plaintiffs, following Snap's settlement last week, temporarily stepping away from courtroom battles. Meanwhile, Meta and YouTube, also defendants in the same lawsuit, are proceeding to trial, with jury selection underway.


What is important here is that a settlement does not equal a loss. As reported by TechCrunch, a settlement does not necessarily mean an admission of claims, and the terms are often not disclosed. However, the fact that action was taken before "fighting in an open court" sends a different message to society.


2. The Core of the Lawsuit: Plaintiff K.G.M. Claims "Design-Induced Addiction"

At the center of the lawsuit is the 19-year-old plaintiff "K.G.M.," indicated by initials in court documents. According to reports, K.G.M. claims that the "design to keep attention" of each platform led to excessive fixation from a young age, severely impacting mental health.


The characteristic of this type of lawsuit is that it not only addresses "harmful content" but also problematizes the "mechanisms (product design) that easily lead to harmful conditions." The issue at hand is whether now-standard experience designs like infinite scroll, autoplay, strong notifications, and recommendation optimization can be treated as "product defects" in court.


3. Why Settlements Occurred in Succession: The "Public Risk" for Companies

The background to TikTok and Snap's successive settlements includes the companies' "management of uncertainty." Jury trials are unpredictable. Furthermore, during the process of evidence disclosure and witness questioning, there is a possibility that internal documents and decision-making could be exposed. The Guardian reports that executive testimony and the disclosure of internal documents could become focal points.


For the plaintiffs, settlements are also rational. They can avoid potentially prolonged trials while securing some compensation. However, settlements with undisclosed terms make it difficult to see "what improvements will be made" from the outside. From the perspective of preventing recurrence for society as a whole, the lack of transparency can lead to dissatisfaction.


4. Meta and YouTube Remaining in Court: Top Executives as Witnesses

Meanwhile, the trial is expected to continue with Meta and YouTube as defendants, with reports indicating that top executives will testify. TechCrunch mentions the expected testimonies of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and YouTube's top executive Neal Mohan.

 
Reuters and AP also report that jury proceedings will continue in a Los Angeles court and that this trial could serve as a "bellwether" for numerous similar lawsuits.


The reason this is a watershed moment is simple. If the jury's decision leans towards recognizing "design responsibility" to some extent, similar lawsuits could cascade. Conversely, if proving causation is deemed difficult and dismissed, the plaintiffs' strategy will need to be revised.


5. Legal Issues: The Tension Between Freedom of Expression and "Design Responsibility"

The defense line that defendant companies are expected to assert strongly involves U.S.-specific issues regarding platform responsibility. CBS introduces the perspective that if such claims are established, they could circumvent the legal protections (such as immunity regarding user posts) that companies have relied on.


However, the plaintiffs also aim to shift the issue towards "product liability" by problematizing "design and operational choices that enhance addiction" rather than "pursuing responsibility for post content." In other words, the argument is that SNS is not merely a "place" but a "product designed to keep people engaged for long periods," resulting in foreseeable harm.


6. SNS Reactions: Support, Skepticism, and Demands for Transparency Emerge Simultaneously

This news has also elicited strong reactions on social media. Browsing Reddit threads reveals three major viewpoints.


(1) The Viewpoint that "Settlement is to Avoid 'Disclosure of Evidence'"
Some posts perceive the pre-trial settlement as a move to "take action before inconvenient information emerges in court."


(2) The Argument of "Addiction is Self-Management, One Should Distance Themselves"
On the other hand, there are reactions emphasizing behavioral change on the user's side, with the view that "addiction can happen to many people, so distancing oneself is best."


(3) Calls for Transparency on "Who Settled, What, and How"
Questions are raised about the undisclosed settlement terms, such as "who was satisfied" and "what about the accountability for the harm."


In another thread, there was a post interpreting Meta's stance that "mental health is multifactorial, and attributing the cause solely to SNS is an oversimplification" as not a denial but a shift in the argument.


In short, SNS public opinion simultaneously runs with anger that "companies should be judged," calmness that "the issue is more complex," and demands for transparency that "non-public settlements do not lead forward."


7. What Will Happen Next: Will the "Standards" for Safe Design Be Decided in Court?

The impact of the trial's outcome is not limited to the amount of damages. The Guardian also touches on the structure where the plaintiffs seek not only monetary compensation but also design changes and the establishment of safety standards.

 
AP reports that this trial will be tested by a jury for the first time and could last several weeks.


If the optimization of notifications, recommendations, and autoplay is recognized as "design exploiting the vulnerabilities of minors," future product requirements may change. Age estimation and content control, revision of default settings, enforcement of time limits, and accountability for algorithms could be elevated from "optional safety features" to "standards close to obligations."


Conversely, if the plaintiffs fail to prove causation and lose, similar lawsuits will likely move towards "changing the framework (accumulating academic evidence, securing internal design documents, specifying target ages and symptoms)." In any case, this "last-minute settlement" symbolizes that the debate over SNS design responsibility has finally shifted from the "public opinion" arena to the "courtroom."


Source URL

Related Articles