Does social media create addiction?

(spoiler – we still don’t know)

TL;DR: Time spent online is NOT a sign of addiction. Compulsive usage, loss of control, using internet as a mood regulator is. Using social media does lead to this effect in some people and does not in others.

You may have recently read lines like “Meta and Youtube found liable in social media addiction trial". However, very few publications actually bothered analyzing what addiction is - so I decided to do it for you, because there is LOTS of confusion about it in the media and public opinion.

First of all, spending lots of time online is not a sign of addiction. The court was not trying to decide whether scrolling for hours is bad or unhealthy in general. Instead, it focused on a much narrower and more important question: when does use stop being a choice and start looking like a loss of control.

Second, the court did not say that social media users as a whole are addicted. It did not make a broad scientific claim about a generation being hooked on screens (although this is what is being celebrated in many places now). What it did was evaluate one person’s experience and conclude that, in this specific case, the pattern of behavior looked similar to what psychology describes as addiction. That distinction matters, because in science there is a clear difference between heavy use and addictive behavior.

Psychology specialists use two medical manuals - issued by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization that define what addiction is. According to them, in an addiction the key issue is whether a person loses control, develops a strong psychological reliance, and continues the behavior even when it causes harm. Note that there is no such thing as internet or social media addiction defined in the medical books as of today. So these ideas come from broader models of behavioral addiction, such as the one proposed by Mark Griffiths, which describe patterns that can apply not only to substances but also to certain activities.

In the case considered by the court in Meta/Youtube trial, several of these patterns were present.

First, there was a clear loss of control. The person who suffered did not simply choose to spend a lot of time online; she tried to reduce her use and found that she could not. This is one of the most important signals in addiction research, because it shows that the behavior is no longer fully voluntary.

Second, there was strong emotional discomfort when access to social media was limited. This does not necessarily mean a physical withdrawal like in substance use, but it does suggest psychological dependence. The activity begins to function as a way to regulate mood, so without it the person feels distressed, anxious, or unsettled.

Third, social media had become mentally dominant. Even when not actively using it, the person was thinking about it, wanting to return to it, and struggling to focus on other parts of life. In research, this is often described as preoccupation, and it reflects how the activity starts to take priority over other concerns.

Fourth, and most importantly, the behavior continued despite clear negative consequences. The person experienced worsening mental health, including symptoms like anxiety and depression, yet was unable to stop or significantly reduce use. This persistence in the face of harm is considered one of the core features of addiction across different models.

Finally, these patterns were linked to real impairment in daily life. The issue was not just that social media was distracting or time-consuming, but that it had a measurable negative impact on well-being and functioning. In clinical terms, this is what separates high engagement from a potential disorder. Without impairment, even excessive use is not usually classified as addiction.

The key takeaway from this case is not that social media is inherently addictive for everyone, but that in some individuals, under certain conditions, patterns of use can begin to resemble addiction as it is understood in psychology. The difference comes down to control, dependence, and harm. Many people use social media a lot and can still stop when they decide to. In cases like this one, that ability to stop appears to break down, and that is the line the court ultimately recognized.

Do you recognize these signs of addiction in yourself or someone you know? The best way to cope would be to talk to a recognized psychology/psychiatry professional. You cannot cope with addiction just by relying on your willpower and trying to be more disciplined.

P.S. For full clarity, I do not use any social media apart from Linkedin and I do think that the social media platforms have certain responsibility in using addictive design pattern. What I don't think though is that we should oversimplify the problem or misuse scientific terms as "addiction" - because this way we won't find any solution.