TikTok has settled to prevent it from taking part in a historic social media addiction case – a case hours before a jury was set to be selected in California.

According to the plaintiff, KGM, who is a 20-year-old female, the construction of the algorithms of platforms made her addicted to social media and had a harmful impact on her mental state.

The Social Media Victims Law Centre said that the terms of the TikTok settlement were confidential and that the parties were happy to have resolved this dispute amicably.

The new defendants are now Meta, which owns Instagram, Facebook and YouTube parent Google. Snapchat recently paid off the plaintiff last week.

Perilous and addictive algorithms

The defended social media companies have opined that the evidence provided by the plaintiff is not enough to establish that they are causing supposed damages like depression and eating disorders.

The trialling case is a prominent change in the US legal system’s approach towards treating tech companies, as they are increasingly being accused of producing products that are addictive.

The companies have egregiously claimed that the liability for what third parties post is exempted in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enacted by Congress in 1996.

However, in this case, design decisions are involved concerning algorithms, notifications and other developments that influence user behaviour of their applications.

The attorney of KGM, Matthew Bergman, said to the BBC that the case is the first instance where a social media company is going to be brought to face a trial before a jury.

He said, “unfortunately, there are too many children in the United States, the UK and the rest of the world who are suffering like KGM because of the harmful and addictive algorithms that the social media platforms are imposing on unsuspecting children.”

These companies will be forced to justify to the jury why their profits were more valuable than the lives of our youth.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, told the BBC that the social media companies could be threatened to an existential degree when they lose these cases in court.

However, he stated that it might not be easy to prove that plaintiffs can be blamed for physical harm by content publishers.

“This has allowed the plaintiffs to sell that idea, which has led to the flood of new legal issues to which the law was not actually intended to provide answers,” he said.

The technology sector has received preferential treatment.

During the trial, jurors will observe a myriad of evidence, including internal company documentation excerpts.

Mary Graw Leary, a law professor at the Catholic University of America, said that much of what these companies have been working hard to keep secret from the public is bound to be shown in court.

“Meta has claimed to have launched dozens of tools to help teens have a safer online space.

It responded in a statement with a categorical denial of these allegations, and it would be proven by evidence,” it said, “that the company has always been devoted to supporting young people.”

The effectiveness of the safety interventions at Meta has been previously questioned by researchers – Meta claimed that the researchers had not correctly comprehended the manner in which the tools that it introduced were effective.

The companies should claim any harm as being due to third-party users.

Among the most-awaited witnesses to be heard by the jury will be the boss of the company that originated the Facebook tool, Mark Zuckerberg, who will testify at the beginning of the trial.

In 2024, he informed the US senators that the current body of scientific evidence has not indicated any causal relationship between social media and poor mental health outcomes among the youth.

At the same hearing, when one of the senators was prodded, Zuckerberg apologised to the victims and their loved ones who packed the chamber.

Mary Anne Franks, a professor of law at George Washington University, said that tech executives tend to be unsuitable in moments of stress.

She reported that the companies were hoping that they would not have top bosses testify.

The trial is a result of increased questioning by families, school districts and prosecutors all across the world of the companies.

Meta faced harassment by dozens of US states, which claimed the company deceived the public about the dangers of using social media, as well as a crisis in youth mental health.

Australia has already implemented a social media ban on under-16s, and in January Britain indicated it might do the same.

According to Franks, there is a breaking point concerning the evils of social media.

It has been giving the technology industry special treatment – I believe that is changing.