WINDER LAW FIRM
YouTube Addiction Lawsuit
Families and young people are filing lawsuits alleging that YouTube’s platform works in ways that harm young users. These lawsuits are sometimes referred to as part of the YouTube addiction lawsuit.
These YouTube lawsuits are part of broader litigation involving major social media companies. These lawsuits focus on alleged harms linked to heavy YouTube use by minors. Some harms include anxiety, depression, eating disorders, sleep problems, or self-harm.
Did you or your child experience mental health concerns after heavy YouTube use as a minor? If so, you may want to explore if legal options exist in your situation.
You can review eligibility criteria here or get a free case evaluation here.
Free No Obligation Consultation
What Is the YouTube Addiction Lawsuit?
The term “YouTube addiction lawsuit” is used to describe claims in a larger federal case involving harm to minors. These cases consider whether social platform design played a part in youth health concerns.
YouTube is among the platforms named in a federal litigation with over 1,800 plaintiffs.
Families allege the platform emphasized growth and long viewing sessions. They also allege the platform failed to address known risks to children’s mental health.
Families describe platform features they believe led to longer viewing by minors. They say this behavior was associated with:
- Anxiety,
- Depression,
- Eating disorders, and
- Other health concerns
Some lawsuits claim the company knew or should have known about these dangers. Parents also allege family warnings and safety tools were not strong enough. They say stronger controls and different designs could have helped limit harm.
Who May Be Eligible to File a YouTube Mental Health Lawsuit?
Some individuals may be potentially eligible for a youth harm lawsuit against YouTube. These are often people who:
- used the platform heavily as minors, and
- later developed serious mental-health harms that may be linked to that use.
Winder Law Firm is gathering information from individuals with potential legal claims who have been diagnosed with certain health conditions. Inquiries may be shared with a partner firm under a marketing arrangement.
Possibly Qualifying Users and Injuries
You or a loved one may qualify if you:
- Used YouTube heavily as a minor, and
- Later developed a serious condition, such as:
- Body-image issues
- Eating disorders
- Sleep problems
- Depression
- Anxiety
- ADHD symptom worsening (as alleged in some claims)
- Self-harm or suicidal thoughts (as alleged in some claims)
Records of Platform Use and Alleged Harm
Possible supporting records include:
- Records from counseling or therapy
- Notes from the hospital or psychiatry sessions
- Reports showing academic performance decline or behavioral changes
- Usage logs or device screen-time data that support claims of heavy use
You can request a free case review here.
Have you or your child experienced any of the harms above?
Let’s discuss your legal options in a free case review. 
YouTube Addiction and Youth Harm Overview
Considering filing a youtube youth mental health lawsuit? This background below explains:
- how the platform works, and
- why families allege harm to young users.
About YouTube
Before we discuss lawsuits against YouTube, let’s review some info about the company.
YouTube was founded in 2005 by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim. Their initial concept was as a video-based dating website. The website evolved into a free video-hosting platform because users uploaded a broad range of content.
In October 2006, Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. It soon became a main online video content website.
YouTube’s Platform Features
YouTube is mainly a video sharing platform. YouTube allows users to upload, watch, and share videos across devices. Key features include:
- Channels,
- Subscriptions,
- Playlists,
- Shorts for short-form video,
- Live streaming, and
- A recommendation algorithm that drives discovery and viewing time
YouTube’s Alleged Harmful Design Features
The lawsuits describe several YouTube features as harmful to minors when used for long periods. Families say these features make it harder for kids to stop watching.
Recommendation algorithm
- One feature discussed is how videos are suggested. The system bases choices on viewing history. Claims say this keeps users moving from one video to the next.
Autoplay
- Autoplay is also named in the claims. Videos continue playing without user input. This can reduce natural breaks that help users step away.
Infinite queues and playlists
- Infinite video queues are also mentioned by people suing YouTube. These allow hours of viewing without interruption. Families argue this setup supports unhealthy use.
Shorts feed
- The Shorts feed is also mentioned in lawsuits. It relies on fast scrolling and short clips. Claims say this design can encourage nonstop viewing.
Notifications
- Notifications round out the list of concerns in claims. Alerts about new content can allegedly draw minors back again and again.
What Is Social Media Addiction?
Mental health professionals often use the term “social media addiction” to refer to use that interrupts daily life. This phrase does not always indicate an official medical diagnosis.
Some users of social networks may:
- feel compelled to keep watching videos,
- struggle to stop consuming content, or
- experience mood changes when unable to access content.
Claims That Social Media Use May Lead To Mental-Health Issues
Lawsuits claim that platforms like YouTube were allegedly built to appeal to and engage minors.
They claim aspects of the platform design contributed to:
- heavy use,
- emotional distress, and
- other mental and physical harms among minors.
What Research Shows About Minors and Alleged Social Media Harm
There has been a significant amount of research done on young people and social media harm. The lawsuits cite specific research, let’s review some of it now.
- U.S. Surgeon General Warning. This warned parents about the dangers of social media designs that maximize user engagement. The warning said such designs may expose kids to risks. The possible risks include: depression, anxiety, sleep disruption, eating-disorder concerns, and self-harm.
- Findings Published in JAMA Psychiatry. This study looked at children aged 12-15 and time spent on social media. Their findings indicated possible danger if the kids spent over 3 hours on social media per day. Researchers said they showed more risk of developing mental health issues.
- A Review Published in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry. This review found that kids see self-harm content on social media. Researchers said some kids may mimic behaviors they see online. Their findings linked self-harm content exposure to distress and suicidal ideation in adolescents.
- Neuroscience Research on App Engagement. This study found that unpredictable rewards trigger dopamine responses. For example, “likes.” Researchers said those dopamine responses may reinforce compulsive checking.
- Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale. This is a tool researchers use to measure problematic social media use. The scale identifies symptoms. These include: preoccupation, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse.
Statements Cited in the YouTube Lawsuits
People filing lawsuits against YouTube allege the platform prioritized user engagement. They claim YouTube prioritized engagement over kid’s safety despite known risks.
The words of a YouTube executive at CES in 2018 highlighted the platform’s focus on user engagement. He said:
- Over 70% of all watch time came from YouTube’s recommendations feature
- The average session on a mobile device is longer than an hour
How to File a YouTube Addiction Lawsuit
Filing a claim starts with basic preparation. Eligibility depends on the details of each person’s situation. Starting a claim usually follows a process that determines eligibility.
The Typical Claim Filing Process
Some families get started by speaking with a law firm that handles youth harm cases tied to social media. This helps clarify whether a claim fits the type of cases being reviewed.
Information is usually gathered along the way. Records can help show how YouTube was used and what harm followed. Supporting documents may include health or screen time data. These are reviewed case by case.
Is It Necessary To Hire An Attorney?
Official legal help is not required to file a lawsuit. Some families still choose to work with a lawyer though. Keep in mind that guidance from an attorney can help explain options and deadlines. Lawyers can also help review evidence before filing and as the lawsuit progresses.
How Can I Understand Potential Compensation for YouTube Youth Harm Lawsuits?
No public settlement data is available. Any future payment depends on case facts and other details.
Settlement Disclaimer: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case is unique, and compensation depends on individual circumstances.
Is There a Settlement Range for This Type of Lawsuit?
See disclaimer above. Results vary and no outcome is guaranteed.
No public range exists at this time. If other firms indicate a range does exist, it’s likely just speculation which would be invalid.
What Factors May Influence Settlement Amount?
See disclaimer above. Results vary and no outcome is guaranteed.
The level of harm can affect outcomes. The time span of harm may matter. Age at use can be considered. Evidence linking use to harm can matter.
Get a Free YouTube Addiction Case Review
Note: Fill out the form or call to see if legal options may be available. Inquiries may be shared with a partner law firm under a marketing arrangement. The partner may assist with next steps.
Concerned about youth mental health and YouTube? A case review may help you explore legal options.
Did you or your child experience mental health harms after heavy YouTube use as a minor?
Fact Checked
Winder Law Firm strives to provide accurate and timely information, but the content on this page is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need legal guidance or are considering legal action, consult an attorney. This website strives to follow applicable state bar and ABA ethical marketing rules. We are not responsible for third-party content, including linked law firms or services, and do not endorse or recommend them. We bear no liability for security risks or issues from external links.
View our editorial guidelines for more details.
Legally Approved
The content on this page has been reviewed for legal accuracy by Attorney Aaron A. Winder. This content is for informational purposes only and not legal advice. It is not a substitute for professional legal counsel. Winder Law Firm does not guarantee this website content’s accuracy, completeness, or relevance. This website may contain inaccuracies, typographical errors, or outdated information and does not necessarily reflect the firm’s or its employees’ opinions. Consult an attorney for legal guidance.
Legally Reviewed
The content on this page has been reviewed for legal accuracy by Attorney Aaron A. Winder. This content is for informational purposes only and not legal advice. It is not a substitute for professional legal counsel. Winder Law Firm does not guarantee this website content’s accuracy, completeness, or relevance. This website may contain inaccuracies, typographical errors, or outdated information and does not necessarily reflect the firm’s or its employees’ opinions. Consult an attorney for legal guidance.
Award Methodology
The CALI Excellence for the Future Award® is given to the highest-scoring student in a law school course, as determined by the instructor or registrar. This award recognizes academic excellence in legal education and is granted by the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI), a nonprofit consortium of law schools and organizations.
Attorney Aaron A. Winder, owner of Winder Law Firm, received this award in Advanced Criminal Procedure while studying at Gonzaga University School of Law.
More information about the CALI Excellence for the Future Award® can be found at CALI’s website.
Disclaimer
This page offers general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney‑client relationship. Allegations mentioned are unproven in court. Information is based on public sources. Inquiries may be shared with a partner firm under a marketing arrangement.