NAIROBI, Kenya- TikTok’s troubles just got a whole lot deeper. Recent unredacted documents from a lawsuit filed by the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office reveal that TikTok executives were well aware of the app’s negative effects on teens.
These revelations come as the social media giant faces lawsuits from over a dozen U.S. states, all accusing the platform of harming minors.
The unsealed files paint a troubling picture of how TikTok has handled the issue of teen addiction, showing that the company prioritized public perception over meaningful action—just as a potential U.S. ban on the app looms.
The unredacted documents expose candid discussions among TikTok executives regarding the risks the app poses to teens.
Despite internal research highlighting serious concerns, TikTok seemingly brushed off the warnings. Among the findings was a stark revelation: it takes just 260 videos for someone to form a habit—effectively leading users, particularly teens, into addictive behavior.
The app’s endless scroll design is especially potent, feeding into compulsive usage that can affect mental health.
TikTok’s own research outlined several alarming effects, including diminished analytical skills, weakened memory, decreased empathy, shallow conversational depth, and heightened anxiety.
Furthermore, teens using the app excessively reported struggles with personal responsibilities—like getting enough sleep, maintaining relationships, and focusing on school or work commitments.
These findings suggest TikTok knew about the adverse effects long before it became a focal point in the lawsuit.
In response to public criticism, TikTok introduced time management tools and “break” videos, encouraging users to take pauses from endless scrolling.
But according to the documents, these features weren’t designed to truly address compulsive app use.
Executives discussed the rollout of these tools as a way to bolster public trust through media coverage, rather than focusing on their actual effectiveness in reducing screen time for teens.
One internal communication even described the break videos as useful only for discussions with policymakers, essentially admitting they were more about optics than substance.
This revelation adds fuel to the argument that TikTok has been more concerned with managing its public image than protecting its young users.
While these features may sound helpful, the fact that TikTok itself didn’t believe in their efficacy paints a disingenuous picture of the platform’s commitment to user well-being.
While TikTok is currently at the center of this multistate litigation, some critics argue that state lawmakers should cast a wider net.
Platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter) all rely on similar engagement-driven algorithms that can foster addictive behaviors, especially among teens.
If the focus remains solely on TikTok, it may overlook the broader issue of how social media is designed to keep users hooked, regardless of the platform.
As the legal battle against TikTok intensifies, these documents add weight to the argument that the app’s negative impact on minors is not just a matter of public debate—it’s something the company has long been aware of.
Whether this will lead to stronger regulations, potential bans, or more scrutiny of other platforms remains to be seen.
