The lawsuit draws on research allegedly commissioned by Meta and conducted with Nielsen that found abstaining from social media for just a week resulted in “lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness and social comparison.” The complainant argues that despite this evidence, Meta shelved further work and intentionally withheld the findings from the public, mirroring tactics used by industries seeking to hide harmful data.

Beyond broad platforms, Snapchat is also in the spotlight. The lawsuit details how features like Snap Scores, Snap Streaks, and “Quick Add” friend suggestions were designed to encourage endless engagement, especially among younger users. Reports from MEDIANAMA suggest that disappearing Snaps, “My Eyes Only” privacy filters, AR beauty filters, and other features allegedly lure teens into prolonged use, while simultaneously making content harder for parents or authorities to monitor.

Critics argue that these design choices represent more than poor ethics, they amount to a deliberate strategy to monetize teenage attention, even at the cost of teens’ mental health. The lawsuit also points out that safety features already in place are inadequate. Parental controls, time limits, or “well-being” tools do little to curb the powerful pull of infinite scroll, notifications, and reward-driven social metrics when platforms actively optimize for engagement.

While social media has offered teens connection, community, and sometimes meaningful social support, this lawsuit raises a troubling question: when the same companies acknowledge their own platforms can be as addictive as drugs, and then keep them deliberately addictive, are they prioritizing profit over the well-being of children?