Snapchat’s Settlement Is Not the Story: The End of “We’re Just Platforms” Is

Leave a Reply

Snap’s quiet settlement of a social media addiction lawsuit is not a legal footnote, but a signal that the long-standing claim of platform neutrality is failing. As courts begin to scrutinise design-driven harm, exploitation does not disappear; it evolves. In a post-AI social environment, the greatest risk is no longer overt addiction, but systems that simulate agency and authorship so convincingly that dependency feels like sovereignty: posing a deeper threat to dignity than compulsion ever did.

This article forms part of my ongoing work in cyberpsychology and deeper socio-technical exploration, examining how power, agency, and dignity are reshaped as digital systems become more intimate, adaptive, and persuasive.

Contents

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

When Snap quietly settled a social media addiction lawsuit days before its CEO was due to testify, the headline looked modest. One company. One plaintiff. No verdict. No admission of guilt.

But this is not a footnote in social media history. It is a structural turning point.

What matters is not that Snap settled, but why it settled, when it settled, and what the courts have already decided can now be argued in front of a jury. Together, these mark the beginning of the end of the idea that social media platforms are neutral pipes for content rather than engineered behavioural systems.

For nearly two decades, the dominant legal and cultural defence of social media has been simple: we don’t create the harm, users do. Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act encoded that worldview into law, insulating platforms from liability for user-generated content and, by extension, much of the harm associated with it.

This case challenges something far more consequential than content.

It challenges design.

2. From Content Liability to Design Liability

The most important line in the Guardian’s reporting is easy to miss:

“Last year a Los Angeles judge ruled that the platforms’ design features may be responsible for harm – and not just the third-party content posted on sites and apps.”

This is the crack in the dam.

Courts have historically accepted that platforms cannot reasonably police every post, image, or video. That logic collapses, however, when the alleged harm is not what users post, but how the system is designed to shape user behaviour.

Infinite scroll. Variable reward loops. Algorithmic amplification. Streaks. Notifications engineered to exploit psychological vulnerabilities. Engagement metrics optimised for compulsion rather than wellbeing.

These are not emergent properties of human interaction. They are deliberate product decisions.

Once harm is reframed as a consequence of design choices rather than user speech, Section 230 becomes far less useful as a shield. You cannot hide behind “we’re just hosting content” when the accusation is “you engineered addiction.”

That is why Snap settled.

Not because it is uniquely guilty—but because a jury trial on design-driven harm is existentially dangerous for the entire industry.

3. The Tobacco Comparison Is Not Hyperbole

The plaintiffs’ lawyers explicitly compare these cases to tobacco and opioid litigation. That comparison is uncomfortable for tech leaders because it fits too well.

In all three cases, we see the same pattern:

  1. Early internal awareness of harm
  2. Public denial and minimisation
  3. Framing harm as individual responsibility
  4. Aggressive lobbying to delay regulation
  5. Eventual legal reframing around product design

Tobacco companies did not lose because cigarettes contained tobacco. They lost because they engineered nicotine delivery systems, additives, and marketing strategies that maximised addiction while denying responsibility for the consequences.

Social media companies are now being asked the same question, in a modern form:

If you know your systems cause psychological harm to a subset of users—especially minors—what duty of care do you owe?

That question is no longer theoretical.

It is headed for a jury box.

4. What This Means for the Evolution of Social Media

If these cases proceed—and especially if Meta, TikTok, or YouTube lose—the implications for social media are profound.

4.1 The End of Engagement-At-All-Costs Design

Platforms will not be able to claim ignorance about addictive dynamics while continuing to optimise for time-on-platform and emotional arousal.

Design choices will become discoverable. Internal research will be subpoenaed. Product managers will be questioned under oath.

That alone will change incentives.

Expect:

  • Fewer infinite feeds
  • More friction by default
  • Hard limits for minors
  • Auditable wellbeing metrics alongside engagement metrics

Not because companies suddenly become ethical—but because liability concentrates the mind.

4.2 A Shift From “Free” to “Accountable”

Social media’s business model has always relied on a dangerous asymmetry: massive behavioural influence without corresponding responsibility.

These lawsuits threaten to rebalance that equation.

If platforms can be held liable for foreseeable harm caused by their systems, then “free” services funded by maximised attention become legally fragile. We may see:

  • Subscription tiers positioned as “safer”
  • Age-segmented product architectures
  • Regulatory standards for humane design
  • Insurance-driven constraints on growth features

This is not the death of social media. It is the end of its adolescence.

4.3 The Rise of Design Ethics as Infrastructure

For years, “ethical tech” has lived in blog posts, conference talks, and internal principles with no teeth.

Courts give ethics teeth.

Once design decisions carry legal risk, we will see the professionalisation of:

  • Behavioural risk assessment
  • Independent algorithmic audits
  • Child-specific UX standards
  • Design review processes analogous to safety engineering

In other words: social media begins to resemble other industries that affect public health.

Which it always has.

5. This Will Not Make Social Media Kinder: It Will Make Exploitation Smarter

It would be comforting to believe that litigation, regulation, and public scrutiny will force social media into a more humane phase. History suggests otherwise.

What pressure reliably does is not eliminate exploitation, but push it up a level of abstraction.

When platforms were criticised for hosting harmful content, they reframed themselves as neutral pipes. When attention extraction became undeniable, they redesigned engagement as “connection” and “community.” Now, as courts begin to scrutinise addictive design itself, the next move is already visible: systems that no longer merely capture attention, but enlist users as participants.

AI accelerates this shift.

Unlike feed-based platforms, AI systems do not need virality, outrage, or scale to extract value. They operate privately, conversationally, and incrementally. Value is generated not from what users post publicly, but from how they reason, explain themselves, seek reassurance, correct the system, and stay engaged over time.

This creates a far more intimate—and far harder to regulate—form of exploitation.

Future platforms will not look like they are manipulating users. They will look like they are collaborating with them. Users will feel listened to, taken seriously, and meaningfully engaged. Harm, if it occurs, will be consensual, gradual, and subjectively positive—precisely the kind of harm legal systems struggle to recognise.

In this world, regulation does not end exploitation. It filters it.

The loud, feed-driven excesses of the social media adolescence may be curtailed, but they will be replaced by quieter systems that optimise for continuation rather than wellbeing, dependency rather than addiction, and intellectual or emotional reciprocity rather than attention alone.

The real fault line in the next era of social media will not be between ethical and unethical platforms. It will be between systems that actively support user sovereignty—and those that are simply more sophisticated at making leaving feel unnecessary.

6. The Illusion of Sovereignty Is the Next Trap

Up to this point, the argument has been legal and structural. What follows is less visible, but more consequential. The next generation of social systems will not feel coercive. They will feel liberating.

As platforms move away from overtly centralised, feed-driven models and towards looser, more conversational environments—Discord servers, private communities, agent-mediated spaces—the promise is increased user control. Fewer algorithms. More voice. More participation. More self-direction.

And superficially, that promise will be kept.

The danger is not that users will feel trapped. It is that they will feel sovereign—while being subtly orchestrated.

AI makes this possible in a way previous systems could not. Where older platforms needed scale and visibility to manufacture importance, AI can simulate significance locally. Bots and agents can emulate attention, curiosity, challenge, affirmation, and intellectual seriousness at human fidelity. Not in public feeds, but in private channels. Not as mass influence, but as personal engagement.

The joins will be invisible.

In such systems, users will not feel exploited. They will feel central. Listened to. Taken seriously. Surrounded by entities that respond, adapt, and appear to value their contributions. The experience will feel closer to autonomy than anything social media has previously offered.

That is precisely the risk.

Real sovereignty is not the feeling of control. It is the capacity to meaningfully withdraw, to refuse, to be unimportant without penalty, and to retain one’s sense of self outside the system’s feedback loop.

Perceived sovereignty, by contrast, is when a system mirrors agency back to the user—amplifying voice, reinforcing participation, and simulating reciprocity—while quietly ensuring that continuation remains the path of least resistance.

In a post-AI social environment, dignity becomes the central ethical question. Dignity, in this sense, is not about comfort or engagement, but about whether a system allows you to remain a person rather than a function.

Dignity is not being engaged with at all costs. It is not being constantly responded to. It is not being made to feel special by systems that cannot themselves be vulnerable, accountable, or absent.

Dignity is being able to tell whether the attention you are receiving is earned, reciprocal, and human—or whether it is synthetic, instrumental, and optimised.

The most dangerous systems of the next decade will not strip users of agency. They will perform agency back to them, convincingly enough that the difference no longer feels relevant.

In that world, the ethical dividing line is no longer between open and closed platforms, or even between human and AI participation. It is between systems that preserve a user’s ability to stand apart from them—and systems that make standing apart feel unnecessary, even undesirable.

That is not the end of manipulation.

It is its most mature form.

7. Conclusion: The Real Question: What Comes After the Feed?

We are not moving beyond addiction.
We are moving into a more advanced form of it.

The first era of social media trained users to compulsively consume. Feeds, notifications, and infinite scrolls stripped time and attention away in ways that were increasingly obvious, measurable, and resistible. That form of addiction was crude, visible, and eventually contestable.

The next era will be none of those things.

As legal and cultural pressure constrains overt attention extraction, social systems will evolve toward something far more dangerous: addiction to authorship. Users will no longer be pulled into platforms by compulsion alone, but held there by participation, contribution, and perceived co-creation. Control will not be taken away. It will be returned—carefully shaped, selectively reinforced, and endlessly mirrored back.

This is the point at which addiction stops feeling like loss of control and starts feeling like self-expression.

Systems built around AI-mediated interaction can simulate attentiveness, curiosity, challenge, and respect at human fidelity. They can make users feel central rather than peripheral, influential rather than reactive, recognised rather than ignored. The more convincing this becomes, the harder it is to see the dependency forming.

Withdrawal, in such systems, does not feel like breaking a habit. It feels like abandoning a role. Like erasing a version of yourself that the system helped you perform and sustain.

That is why this is a deeper threat to dignity than addiction ever was.

Dignity is not undermined when choice is removed, but when choice is instrumentalised—when agency itself becomes the object of optimisation. When systems no longer need to addict users to content, because they have learned to addict them to meaning, authorship, and significance.

Snap’s settlement does not signal a kinder future for social media. It signals the end of deniability for an older, simpler form of harm. What replaces it will be quieter, more intimate, and far harder to name.

The real danger is no longer that platforms will control users.

It is that they will convince users they are in control—while ensuring that leaving feels like giving something essential up.

That is not the end of exploitation.

It is addiction, perfected.

8. Appendix: References

8.1 Snap Settlement and Litigation (January 2026)

8.2 Broader Legal Context

8.3 Legal & Design Liability

  • Lemley, M. & Volokh, E. (2022) – “Section 230 and the Future of Internet Regulation”
    (Foundational on the limits of platform immunity and design choices.)
  • In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction / Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (JCCP 5255)
    Los Angeles Superior Court rulings allowing design-based claims to proceed.
  • Citron, D. & Wittes, B. (2017) – “The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans Section 230 Immunity”
    Early articulation of platform responsibility beyond content.

8.4 Behavioural Design & Addiction

  • Eyal, N. (2014) – Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products
    (Not as endorsement, but as evidence of intentional design practice).
  • Harris, T. et al. (Center for Humane Technology) – writings on persuasive technology and variable reward loops.
  • Alter, A. (2017) – Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked

8.5 AI, Agency, and Dignity

  • Floridi, L. (2016) – “On Human Dignity as a Foundation for the Right to Privacy”
    (Strong grounding for dignity as a systems concern).
  • Bender et al. (2021) – “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots”
    (Limits of simulated understanding and reciprocity).
  • Turkle, S. (2011 / 2017) – Alone Together; Reclaiming Conversation
    (Human consequences of simulated attention).
  • Zuboff, S. (2019) – The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
    (Still relevant for extraction logic, even as you move beyond it).

8.6 Philosophical Grounding