KUALA LUMPUR – TikTok has reached a settlement in a high-profile lawsuit alleging the platform’s design intentionally promotes addiction and causes harm to children, averting a trial set to begin in Los Angeles, according to the plaintiff’s legal team.
While the financial terms of the settlement have not been disclosed, TikTok has yet to provide any public comment, as reported by the Associated Press.
This lawsuit is one of many filed against major social media companies, including Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube, and focuses on claims that design features aimed at maximising user engagement have led to addiction and psychological distress among younger users.
Last week, Snap Inc., the owner of Snapchat, settled its part in the case, leaving Meta and YouTube to face trial.
“The parties are pleased to have reached an amicable resolution of this dispute,” said the Social Media Victims Law Center, confirming the TikTok settlement but adding that the terms remain confidential.
The defendants in the case now include Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram) and Google (owner of YouTube), with Snapchat having reached a settlement last week.
The companies named in the lawsuit have denied the allegations, arguing that the evidence presented by the plaintiff is insufficient to prove that their platforms caused issues like depression or eating disorders. The case marks a turning point in the legal landscape surrounding tech firms, which are facing an increasing number of claims that their products contribute to addictive behaviours.
For years, tech companies have relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, to shield themselves from liability for user-generated content. However, this case centres on the platforms’ design choices, such as algorithms, notifications, and other features that influence user engagement.
Matthew Bergman, the plaintiff’s attorney, told the BBC, “Unfortunately, there are all too many kids in the United States, the UK, and around the world who are suffering as KGM does because of the dangerous and addictive algorithms that the social media platforms foist on unsuspecting kids.” He added, “These companies are going to have to explain to a jury why their profits were more important than the lives of our young people.”
Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, noted that a loss in court could represent a significant threat to the future of these social media giants. However, he warned that plaintiffs might struggle to establish direct links between the content published on these platforms and the physical harm alleged.
“The fact that the plaintiffs have been able to sell that idea has opened the door to a whole bunch of new legal questions that the law wasn’t really designed to answer,” Goldman explained.
The trial in California’s Superior Court will test new legal questions about the impact of social media on youth mental health. The plaintiff, 19-year-old K.G.M. from California, claims that she became addicted to these platforms at a young age due to their attention-grabbing design, which, she alleges, led to depression and suicidal thoughts.
This case is part of a broader movement against social media addiction, and it could pave the way for several other lawsuits aimed at holding tech companies accountable for alleged harms. Jury selection for the trial began on Tuesday.
A key issue in the case is whether the federal law that protects platforms from legal liability for user-generated content—Section 230—can be overridden in cases like this one, where the focus is on the platforms’ design features. A ruling against the tech companies would significantly weaken their legal protections, potentially leading to a wave of lawsuits.
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, is expected to testify in the trial, where Meta’s defence will argue that its platforms did not cause K.G.M.’s mental health issues. Snap CEO Evan Spiegel was also slated to testify, with Snapchat having reached a settlement in the case earlier this year.
YouTube is expected to present its own defence, arguing that its platform is fundamentally different from those of Instagram and TikTok. TikTok declined to comment on its courtroom strategy.
As the trial progresses, these tech companies are simultaneously working to improve their public image by launching campaigns aimed at assuring the public that their platforms are safe for children and teenagers.
Meta, for example, has hosted parent workshops to promote teen online safety, while TikTok has run similar programmes to educate parents about features that allow them to monitor their children’s screen time. YouTube, for its part, has partnered with the Girl Scouts to educate kids about digital privacy and online safety.
Despite these efforts, critics argue that the companies are prioritising profit over the wellbeing of young users, and the outcome of this case may set a significant precedent for how social media platforms are held accountable in the future. – January 28, 2026