Summary: A March 25, 2026, California jury awarded $6 million to a plaintiff who argued that the addictive features of social media caused her harm. The verdict names Google and Meta as liable, though both companies say they will appeal. The case has intensified public debate about whether social media use should be classified as a clinical addiction and what evidence is needed to make that determination.
In a 2026 commentary, Dar Meshi, an associate professor of advertising and public relations at Michigan State University’s College of Communication Arts and Sciences, reviews the current scientific evidence and explains why researchers remain cautious about labeling social media use as an addiction. Meshi highlights gaps in the research, the risks of premature medicalization, and policy steps that could help experts determine whether some patterns of use are truly addictive.
Key Facts
- The $6M verdict: On March 25, 2026, a jury awarded US$6 million to a plaintiff who said social media’s addictive features harmed her. Google and Meta dispute the judgment and plan to appeal.
- Evidence limitations: Much of the research linking social-media use to brain differences and poor outcomes is correlational rather than causal, meaning associations are clear but directionality and cause are not.
- Medicalization concerns: Labeling everyday platform use as a medical disorder too soon could overburden health systems, increase stigma, and lead to inappropriate diagnoses and treatments.
- Policy recommendation: Meshi recommends that policymakers require social-media companies to provide researchers with secure, anonymized behavioral data so experts can identify which specific features or usage patterns are most likely to trigger harmful, addictive-like responses.
About the expert: Dar Meshi studies the psychology of technology use, focusing on how social media affects behavior, cognition, and mental health. He authored a commentary in Nature summarizing why a formal diagnostic label for social-media addiction remains out of reach.
The following sections summarize Meshi’s commentary and address key questions about social media use, harm, and the current state of scientific and clinical guidance.
What are the impacts of excessive social media use?
Case studies and observational research have linked excessive social-media use to psychological distress and impaired functioning in some individuals. Reported harms include job loss, relationship breakdowns, academic difficulties, differences in the structure and activity of reward-related brain regions, and poorer decision-making—traits that overlap with features seen in substance-use disorders. However, outcomes vary widely depending on how people use platforms. ‘Active’ engagement such as posting, commenting, and messaging correlates with better well-being, while passive behaviors like prolonged scrolling are more often associated with harm. For marginalized groups—especially LGBTQ+ youth—social media can offer critical social support and community connection.
Does social media qualify as addictive behavior?
Despite more than two decades of research, many experts are cautious about calling social-media use an addiction. There is no consensus that current evidence meets the standard diagnostic criteria used for addictive disorders. Central questions remain unanswered: Does social-media use cause measurable, reproducible biological changes? Can it produce the same pattern of compulsive behavior and functional impairment required for clinical addiction diagnoses? Rigorous longitudinal and experimental studies are needed to move beyond correlations and clarify causality.
What defines a clinical addiction?
In the United States, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) controls formal psychiatric diagnostic criteria through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). For the APA to designate a behavior as an addiction, evidence must show that the behavior causes significant harm, is tied to biological mechanisms, and that labeling it as a disorder provides more benefit than harm (for example, by guiding effective treatment) while avoiding unnecessary stigma. The DSM’s most recent full edition predates much of the research on problematic social-media use, and updates so far have not created a new diagnostic category.
Could social media be classified as an addiction in the future?
It is possible, but not yet supported by consensus. The APA has educational material mentioning “social media addiction,” but formal diagnostic guidance has not followed. Meshi recommends that the APA and its subcommittees—including experts in behavioral addictions—carefully evaluate new evidence and establish transparent criteria if warranted. Any decision should be revisited as better data accumulate.
What are the risks of misusing the term “addiction”?
Applying the addiction label too broadly could pathologize normal behavior and divert clinical resources from people with severe disorders. Poor measurement or weak thresholds could increase stigma, result in unnecessary treatments, and overwhelm healthcare systems. Conversely, an accepted diagnostic category could standardize screening, improve treatment development, and strengthen research by ensuring consistent case definitions. The balance depends on rigorous science and careful professional oversight.
How should policy respond?
Better data are essential. Policymakers could require secure access to anonymized platform behavior data for qualified researchers, or facilitate consented sharing of identifiable data under strict privacy controls. That information would help identify which features or usage patterns predict harm, reveal individual differences in vulnerability, and guide targeted interventions. Meshi emphasizes that determinations about clinical status should be guided by trained experts and robust data rather than legal proceedings alone.
Key Questions Answered:
A: Juries adjudicate harm in specific legal cases. Clinicians need a universal, evidence-based biological and behavioral standard—criteria that the APA must define—before diagnosing a disorder that affects large numbers of people.
A: Some studies report similarities in activity within reward-related brain regions, but current findings are correlational. It remains unclear whether social-media use causes brain changes or whether pre-existing brain differences make some people more drawn to platforms.
A: No. For many users, especially marginalized individuals, social media provides vital social support. The impact depends on how people use platforms: active, social engagement tends to be healthier than passive, comparative scrolling.
Editorial Notes:
- This article was edited by a Neuroscience News editor.
- The journal paper was reviewed in full.
- Additional context was added by the editorial staff.
About this psychology and social media research news
Author: Alex Tekip
Source: Michigan State University
Contact: Alex Tekip – Michigan State University
Image: Image credit: Neuroscience News
Original research referenced: Dar Meshi, “Is social media addictive? Why a formal diagnosis is still out of reach.” (Closed access.)
Abstract
Is social media addictive? Why a formal diagnosis is still out of reach
A March 25, 2026 court ruling that awarded US$6 million to a plaintiff who claimed harm from social-media addiction has renewed public scrutiny of platform design and user well-being. Despite extensive study, the scientific community has not converged on diagnostic criteria that meet the standards required to label social-media use a clinical addiction. Experts urge better data, clearer definitions, and involvement from professional bodies like the APA so clinical labels—if adopted—are evidence-based and useful for treatment and prevention.