Unsealed Files: Employees Said Social Apps Were 'Drugs' — Lawsuit Alleges Companies Hid Teen Harms

Newly unsealed internal documents and expert reports in a long-running lawsuit allege that employees at major social media companies likened their platforms to drugs and debated ways to limit parental visibility into young people’s activity while prioritizing engagement. The 5,807-page filing, ordered unsealed by a federal judge on Oct. 30, compiles research, internal communications and expert analysis about potential harms to adolescents.

What the filing shows

Experts who reviewed the materials conclude the companies understood how recommendation systems and product features could intensify body-image issues, eating disorders, predatory behavior and other mental-health harms among teens, yet continued to optimize for time spent and engagement. The filing cites internal exchanges in which employees used blunt language to describe the products’ effects — for example, a Meta senior researcher is quoted saying, "IG [Instagram] is a drug," and another employee replying, "LOL, I mean, all social media. We're basically pushers." The researcher later told investigators the remark was sarcastic.

Representative quotes and examples

"IG [Instagram] is a drug." — quoted from an internal Meta communication

"If we tell teens’ parents and teachers about their live videos, that will probably ruin the product from the start. My guess is we’ll need to be very good about not notifying parents / teachers." — excerpt from a 2016 email attributed to Mark Zuckerberg in the filing

An expert report also contrasts safety settings across related apps, quoting an internal note: "We give spinach to kids in China and opium to kids in America," to illustrate differences between Douyin (the China app) and TikTok’s protections for users under 14. A Snap internal email from 2017 jokingly described "Snapstreaks" as tapping into "some mass psychosis" as employees discussed data showing heavy teen participation.

Company responses

Companies named in the filing dispute the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the documents. Meta and Google maintain the filings cherry-pick quotes and misrepresent internal discussions, and they point to recently introduced safety tools and parental controls as evidence of progress. Snap and TikTok have not provided substantive public rebuttals in the materials cited by the filing.

Legal and regulatory context

The filings are part of a 2022 lawsuit alleging that Meta, TikTok, Snap and YouTube knowingly designed addictive or defective products that harmed teens. Plaintiffs have distilled portions of the unsealed material into briefs filed in multiple courts. Separately, technology companies are challenging state efforts to restrict algorithmic feeds for minors, arguing that personalization is necessary to surface age-appropriate content.

Why it matters

Whether the internal messages reflect offhand remarks or evidence of broader corporate awareness will be central to ongoing litigation and to policy debates over algorithmic recommendations, parental controls and platform responsibility. The newly available materials add fuel to conversations about how platforms are designed and what obligations companies have to protect young users.