What ‘addictive’ social media design means in the LA trial
Social media addiction design refers to platform features intentionally tuned to keep people scrolling, posting, and interacting for prolonged periods, even when that behaviour conflicts with their goals, harms their wellbeing, or shows neurological patterns similar to other recognised addictions. In Los Angeles, this idea is at the centre of a civil trial brought by a woman known as K.G.M., who says heavy childhood use of Instagram and YouTube worsened anxiety, depression, body dysmorphic disorder and suicidal thoughts. Her lawyers argue that major platforms are not neutral tools but carefully engineered systems that exploit psychological vulnerabilities, especially in younger users. The case directly asks whether engagement-driven design crosses the line into “addictive software liability” and whether companies can be treated like product makers who know their design choices create foreseeable harm, rather than simply providers of optional online entertainment.
Inside the evidence: engagement metrics and vulnerable users
Over nearly five weeks of testimony, lawyers for K.G.M. tried to show that large platforms, including Instagram, were built to maximise time-on-app and frequency of use, regardless of emotional cost. Closing arguments described social media companies as predators, comparing them to lions hunting a wounded gazelle to illustrate how algorithms may focus on users who already show signs of distress. The plaintiff’s side stresses that this is not a claim that social media created every problem in her life, but that its intentionally sticky features worsened existing vulnerabilities and encouraged compulsive use. The defence counters that platforms were not designed to harm anyone and points to genetic predisposition and family instability as the dominant causes of her mental health struggles. This clash pits engagement metrics ethics against a narrative of individual risk factors and personal responsibility.
From tobacco and gambling to social media and AI
Researchers and ethicists increasingly compare social media addiction design to earlier public health battles over tobacco and gambling. In both areas, companies long denied harmful and addictive properties while benefiting from repeated use. According to Bernd Stahl of the University of Nottingham, historical cases show that “tobacco companies knew this” about addiction but continued to promote their products until litigation and regulation forced warning labels and advertising limits. Similar questions now surround social platforms and emerging generative AI tools, where heavy, emotionally charged use can show brain and behavioural patterns linked with addiction. While generative AI is not formally classified as addictive, concerns about chatbot dependency and the loss of offline relationships mirror fears about social feeds. These parallels strengthen arguments that tech company responsibility should extend beyond content moderation to the deeper incentives built into their products.
Who should carry responsibility for addictive software?
The LA case is testing how far courts will go in assigning addictive software liability to platform owners rather than users alone. Stahl’s work points to four main groups with shared responsibility: governments and regulators, big tech, academic researchers and civil society organisations. Regulators can demand clearer labelling, restrict certain forms of persuasive design and fund research on long-term effects. Tech companies, however, hold the data and control the engagement metrics that drive design decisions. They therefore sit at the centre of any realistic solution, choosing whether to prioritise user wellbeing or raw engagement. Researchers can help define what counts as problematic or addictive use, while civil society can push for safer defaults and digital literacy. The emerging consensus is that “user choice” is not meaningful if the environment is systematically tuned to keep people hooked.
Possible precedent: towards ethical engagement metrics
Whatever the verdict, the Los Angeles trial is likely to shape future expectations for tech company responsibility. A finding against the platforms could open the door to more lawsuits that treat addictive design as a design defect rather than a side effect. Even a narrow win for the defence might still expose companies to public pressure to adopt ethical design practices, such as age-aware recommendation systems, stronger default limits and clearer explanations of how feeds work. For product teams, engagement metrics ethics will become harder to ignore: measurements like daily active users and watch time may need balancing with indicators of digital wellbeing. The debate is already spilling over to generative AI, where similar concerns about compulsive chatbot use are emerging. In both cases, the core question is whether attention should be extracted or protected.
