Is SNS an Addiction or Just "Overuse"? : Meta Trial Questions the Design's Guilt — Mentions Efforts to Protect Minors

Is SNS an Addiction or Just "Overuse"? : Meta Trial Questions the Design's Guilt — Mentions Efforts to Protect Minors

"Can't Stop Scrolling."


Staying up all night with a smartphone in hand, unable to focus on school or work, and only accumulating self-loathing—such experiences are no longer rare. But what if this "inability to stop" is not due to personal weakness but a "design" embedded by companies for profit? A trial that began in Los Angeles has brought this core issue before a jury.


"Weakness in Age Verification"—Acknowledged Step, Denied Line

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who testified in court, admitted that there was a time when their services, including Instagram, failed to adequately exclude minors, especially those under 13, who are prohibited by the terms of service. While it was explained that identifying underage accounts was "slow" in the past, Meta continues to deny the claim that they intentionally designed their SNS to be "addictive."


This is the twist in the current trial. While companies claim "protecting minors is important" and "we have improved," they draw a line against the plaintiffs' claims of an "addiction mechanism," stating "it's not pathological addiction" and "the causal relationship is weak." In other words, they acknowledge the existence of those who need protection but refuse to take responsibility for the mechanism at the core of the harm—this stance has generated the strongest backlash both in court and on social media.


Plaintiffs Argue "Addiction is Not Accidental but a Feature"

The plaintiff is a 20-year-old woman (referred to by initials in reports) who claims that her exposure to SNS from a young age exacerbated her mental health issues like depression and anxiety. The focus is on the so-called "infinite scroll" and other user experience designs that continuously lead users to more content. These designs extend user time on the platform, leading to ad revenue. The plaintiff argues that these designs have created "addiction" in children's brains, challenging the very design philosophy.


This argument goes beyond the traditional framework of "users create the content." By shifting the focus from "content" to "mechanism," it could circumvent the defenses that giant platforms have relied on for years. This is why the trial is drawing attention as a "test case" (a bellwether lawsuit).


Meta's Counterargument "Other Factors Like Family Environment"

On the other hand, Meta presents a narrative that "the main cause of the plaintiff's mental issues is not SNS but family environment and past experiences," attempting to sever the causal link. This strategy highlights the "complexity of life" in individual cases to relativize the impact of platform design. Additionally, it was reported that an Instagram executive stated that "addiction" cannot be established with SNS, reinforcing Meta's stance that "if there is a problem, it is 'problematic use,' not medical addiction."


However, public opinion does not easily accept this distinction. Many people are aware of the "design that makes time disappear" from their own experience.


YouTube's Argument "We Are a Streaming Service, Not SNS"

In the same courtroom, Google (YouTube) is also fiercely contesting. YouTube argues that it is "closer to streaming like Disney+ or Netflix, not SNS," attempting to escape the category. Furthermore, it has been reported that the average viewing time of the plaintiff on YouTube was not long over a certain period.


However, this argument clashes with general perception. Features like "comments," "recommendations," "auto-play," and "short videos" strongly convey a sense of "social" user experience, making it easy to perceive this as merely a redefinition. While definitions can be a weapon in court, on SNS, they fuel backlash with sentiments like "don't think you can escape with that."


SNS Reaction ① "Apologizing but Not Taking Responsibility?"

On SNS (especially X), a prominent complaint is, "They admit weaknesses but deny the core issue?" Symbolically, while discussing the difficulty of age verification, it was conveyed that "device manufacturers also have a role," leading to criticisms of "shifting responsibility" and "ultimately self-serving," which spread easily.


On the other hand, there are also "realistic" opinions like "age verification is genuinely difficult. Parents, schools, OS, and apps need to share the responsibility." In other words, while criticism is rooted in distrust of companies, those who understand the difficulty of measures tend to be cautious about simple condemnation.


SNS Reaction ② Expectations and Caution About a "Tobacco Lawsuit Redux"

Reports have introduced views likening this to the tobacco industry lawsuits of the 1990s. On SNS, there are expectations like "next, it's Big Tech's turn to become 'Big Tobacco,'" while there is also strong caution that "tobacco is inherently harmful, but SNS has a wide range of uses. Simple comparisons are dangerous."


Here, opinions on strengthening regulations intersect. Voices say, "Strengthening regulations is natural to protect children," while others argue, "Regulations stifle expression and access to information. First, it's about education and rules at home."


SNS Reaction ③ "Redesign Over Ban" Argument and "Ultimately Business" Argument

The discussion quickly turns to "solutions."
- Infinite scrolling and recommendation optimization should be limited for children
- Implement mandatory breaks during nighttime
- Limit notifications by default for minors
- Strengthen age verification (though concerns about privacy and surveillance society)

While such proposals fly around, there is also cynicism that "as long as the ad model remains, the design won't change." The structure where user time directly translates to revenue often makes "healthy SNS" just a facade.


Global Trends: Age Restrictions and Regulation Debates Becoming Real Policies

The reason this trial is attracting attention is that similar movements are progressing worldwide. For example, it has been reported that Australia introduced a system by the end of 2025 setting the world's first minimum age of 16 for SNS use. In Europe, discussions on restricting or regulating minors' use continue. The trial could exert pressure from the "judicial" route, accelerating policy discussions.


However, here again, the "wall of reality" stands. Strict age verification increases risks like submitting personal information or facial recognition. Conversely, if it's lenient, use by those under 13 will persist in different forms. Discussions on SNS ultimately gravitate towards this trade-off.


What This Trial Questions is "Who Bears Responsibility and to What Extent"

This legal battle is not just about whether Meta or Google wins or loses. The bigger issue is how to draw the boundary of responsibility in an era where "design moves people."
- To what extent should companies assume children's vulnerabilities?
- How much can parents and schools supervise?
- How should OS and devices manage age and usage time?
- To what extent should the state intervene?

It's natural for SNS reactions to be divided. Because there isn't a single answer, society seeks a "provisional line" through the format of a trial.


Zuckerberg's acknowledgment of "weaknesses" has at least fueled the discussion forward. However, at the same time, his words have amplified the question, "Then why didn't you change it sooner?" and reignited anger on SNS.
Infinite scrolling may have not only moved fingertips but also made it impossible to stop societal discussions.


Source URL

Related Articles