Who is Responsible for Children's SNS Addiction? - 29 States Sue Meta, and the Wave of "Infinite Scroll Regulation" Approaches Japan

Open Instagram. Watch one video. Swipe your finger upwards, and the next video immediately appears.

You thought, "Just one more," but before you know it, 30 minutes or an hour has passed—

For many smartphone users, this is not an uncommon experience. But what if the person staring at the screen is a teenager whose self-control and judgment are still developing?

And if this "addictiveness" is not by chance but a result of intentional design by companies to maximize usage time, who is responsible?

This is precisely the issue being questioned in U.S. courts right now.

In August 2026, a large-scale lawsuit involving multiple U.S. states concerning Instagram and Facebook, operated by Meta, is about to enter a full-scale trial at the federal court in Oakland, California. Jury selection began on August 12, with opening statements scheduled for the 18th.

The plaintiffs are led by the states of California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey. The lawsuit involves 29 states and has developed into a case that could potentially influence the future of the technology industry regarding the relationship between social media and minors.

The focus is on "SNS design," not "content"

What makes this trial particularly significant is that it goes beyond the conventional argument that "SNS contains harmful content."

The states are targeting the very design of products like Instagram and Facebook.

A prime example is the "infinite scroll" feature, where scrolling down the screen never reaches an end.

In the past, websites would stop once you reached the end of a page. However, in today's SNS, as long as you keep moving your finger, new photos, videos, news, and advertisements appear without interruption.

This is combined with "likes" numbers, notifications of reactions from others, recommended posts, short videos, and algorithms predicting personal interests.

Even when users are about to close the app, new stimuli appear.

The states argue that these features are not merely for convenience but are designed to keep especially young users engaged within the service.

The original article cites nighttime notifications, "likes," and infinite scrolling as specific points of contention. Additionally, there is a dispute over claims that data from children under 13 was handled without proper parental consent, in violation of the U.S. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, known as COPPA.

This could significantly change the debate over the responsibility of SNS companies.

Until now, large platforms have received certain legal protections regarding the content posted by users. However, the states are focusing not on "what someone posted" but on "what kind of product the company created."

For example, if a car manufacturer sells a vehicle with a dangerous design, the responsibility for the design can be questioned, not just the driver's responsibility.

Can the same approach be applied to SNS?

That is one of the core issues of this case.

The lawsuit is likened to "tobacco industry trials"

A comparison that has emerged to symbolize this lawsuit is the litigation against the tobacco industry in the United States during the 1990s.

At that time, the focus was not simply on the fact that "smoking is harmful to health."

Questions were raised about how much companies knew about health risks, whether they adequately informed consumers, and what marketing strategies they employed to keep consumers, including young people, using their products continuously.

The structure is similar this time as well.

The issue is not just the general notion that "using SNS for long periods can be mentally and physically taxing."

How much did Meta internally recognize the impact on young users, and what was communicated to society and parents?

Since the "Facebook Files" were released by former Facebook employee Frances Haugen in 2021, questions have repeatedly been raised about whether Meta was aware of the negative impact Instagram had on some teenage users, particularly girls, regarding body image.

Therefore, in this trial, the extent of the gap between "what Meta knew" and "what was communicated externally" becomes crucial.

Up to $1.4 trillion—But the real threat is not the amount

The potential financial liability claimed by the plaintiffs is extremely large.

Reports indicate that it could reach up to approximately $1.4 trillion in calculations.

However, this does not mean that this amount is likely to be imposed on Meta. The presiding judge has shown a cautious stance regarding the enormous estimates.

Instead, the real risk for Meta lies elsewhere.

As a result of the trial, for services aimed at minors,

Limit infinite scrolling.

Stop nighttime notifications.

Strengthen age verification.

Restrict recommendations using minors' data.

Change the evaluation criteria of algorithms.

These changes could be required by judicial decision.

One of the key metrics that have created value for SNS companies is "how long users stay." The longer they use it, the more opportunities there are to show ads.

If restrictions are placed on the very design that assumes "keeping users engaged for long periods" for minors, it won't just be a matter of fines.

The business model of the service may need to be partially redesigned.

In that sense, more than the compensation amount of hundreds of billions or trillions of yen, the rule changes regarding "what can be created" are more significant for giant IT companies.

Meta has already lost in other lawsuits

This trial is not an isolated lawsuit that suddenly began.

In 2026, there have been a series of harsh judicial decisions against Meta regarding minors and SNS.

In Los Angeles, a verdict recognized the responsibility of Meta and Google in a lawsuit filed by a woman who had used SNS since childhood and suffered mental harm.

Furthermore, in New Mexico, Meta was ordered to bear a huge financial burden and take measures to strengthen the protection of young users.

The judiciary has delved into specific platform operations, including improving age verification, handling notifications for minors, usage time, and child safety measures.

In the United States in 2026, the discussion is shifting from "Is SNS responsible?" to "If responsible, how should the service be specifically changed?"

Meta's counterargument: "Youth mental health cannot be explained by a single app"

Of course, conclusions cannot be drawn solely from the states' claims.

Meta strongly refutes the series of allegations.

One of the company's fundamental arguments is that youth mental health is an extremely complex issue.

Given that many factors are involved, such as family environment, school life, human relationships, economic conditions, bullying, sleep, and social conditions, it is not appropriate to directly link issues like depression and anxiety to a single app.

Additionally, whether "problematic SNS use" can be equated with "addiction" in a medical sense will be a key point of contention in the trial.

On the other hand, Meta has expanded safety measures for teenage users, such as "Teen Accounts," parental monitoring features, privacy settings, and usage time management.

They also provide features that allow parents to understand and manage their children's usage.

Therefore, Meta will contest the plaintiffs' portrayal that "the company has ignored children's safety."

The important issue in this trial is not a simple binary of whether there are risks in SNS.

"To what extent should a company that recognizes risks take measures?"

And "Even if safety measures were implemented, how is responsibility evaluated if the mechanism to extend usage time was maintained simultaneously?"

These more difficult questions are being asked.

On SNS, "companies should be regulated" and "it's the parents' responsibility" clash

When looking at public reactions on English-speaking SNS and forums, opinions are deeply divided on this issue.

Particularly notable are opinions that "penalties for companies are too light."

On forums following the unfavorable judgment for Meta in New Mexico, many posts viewed fines of even hundreds of millions of dollars as "just a business cost" for a giant company like Meta, demanding larger fines and service changes.

There are also views that "design changes are more important than fines" and "other countries should follow similar regulations."

Underlying this is the sense that there are limits to individuals countering massive recommendation algorithms through personal will alone.

Especially when it comes to children, the argument is that the self-responsibility notion of "just close the smartphone yourself" is insufficient.

On the other hand, there are also quite a few opposing views.

"Isn't it the parents' role not to let elementary school students use smartphones without limits?"

"The dangers of the internet have been known for a long time."

"Making companies the sole villains obscures the responsibility of the family."

These are the counterarguments.

Additionally, as a third perspective, there are voices saying, "Even if there are issues with SNS, attributing the youth mental health crisis solely to SNS is oversimplifying."

Economic insecurity, pressure at school, family environment, and social isolation are issues young generations face that existed before SNS. Simply restricting SNS use won't eliminate these issues, they point out.

Thus, when organizing the discussion on SNS,

"Companies should stop designing for addiction."

"Parents should manage first."

"Prohibition alone cannot solve the root causes."

These three viewpoints are clashing.

The realistic answer is likely not just one of these.

There are other dangers to "banning SNS"

If the sole purpose is to protect children, the idea of "banning SNS until a certain age" is straightforward.

However, in reality, there are many problems.

First is age verification.

Requiring submission of identification documents would increase accuracy, but it raises privacy issues of handing over even more personal information to giant platforms.

There are also issues of misjudgment with methods that estimate age using AI based on facial recognition.

What if a child lies about their age?

What if they borrow a parent's account?

Furthermore, SNS is not just for entertainment.

It is also an important social infrastructure for young people to interact with friends outside of school, join hobby communities, support each other as minorities, and gather information during disasters.

Therefore, instead of a binary choice between "total ban" or "complete freedom," designing which features to allow based on age becomes important.

For example, weakening recommendation algorithms for those under 15, disabling nighttime notifications by default, segmenting the screen after a certain time, and narrowing the default public range are possible methods.

Here again, the idea of "changing the design of the service" rather than "restricting users" emerges.

In Japan, "infinite scroll" is also under government consideration

And this point is precisely why the current Meta trial is important for Japan.

In Japan, for a long time, internet measures for children have focused on filtering, household usage rules, and information ethics education.

Of course, these are still necessary.

However, now that smartphones and SNS have become a part of life, the traditional approach of "not showing harmful sites" is no longer sufficient.

For example, TikTok and Instagram themselves are not illegal sites.

There is nothing wrong with chatting with friends, watching cooking videos, or learning sports there.

The problem is that within these normal services, recommendations, notifications, and infinite scrolling are embedded to keep users engaged for long periods.

In response to this change, the Japanese government's considerations are also beginning to move significantly.

In the interim report draft compiled by the "Working Group on the Internet Environment for Youth" of the Children's and Families Agency in July 2026, the direction was indicated to include not only traditional "harmful information" but also the functions and designs of services, such as recommendation functions and infinite scrolling, within the scope of the system.

A mechanism requiring SNS operators of a certain scale to conduct risk assessments, implement youth protection measures, ensure transparency, and make continuous improvements, as well as methods of age verification, are also under consideration.

The discussion on whether to legally restrict SNS use itself for those under a certain age is ongoing, with finalization aimed for December 2026.

This is a very significant change.

The "responsibility for product design" being litigated in the U.S. and the "potentially harmful functions and designs" being considered by the Japanese government are beginning to align in almost the same direction.

Has Japan overly focused on "family issues"?

In Japan, when children's smartphone issues arise