On February 6, 2026, the European Commission issued a press release regarding TikTok’s allegedly addictive design. The release quotes Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice President for Technological Sovereignty, Security, and Democracy: “Social media addiction can have detrimental effects on the developing minds of children and teens. The Digital Services Act makes platforms responsible for the effects they can have on their users (…).”
The European Commission has preliminarily determined that TikTok violates the Digital Services Act (DSA) due to its addictive design. The DSA regulates the activities of digital service providers within the EU and has been in effect in all EU member states since 2024. The regulation is intended to establish basic rules for the market conduct of digital service providers while strengthening the safety and rights of online users. In its press release, the European Commission refers to Article 34 of the DSA. According to the DSA, digital service providers must regularly assess the risks posed by their platforms. This includes, among other things, identifying risks to the health and well-being of minors. Investigations by the European Commission suggest that TikTok has not adequately assessed the risks posed by its addictive features (However, this report was not published; the reference can be inferred from the press release.) According to the European Commission, features that promote addiction include infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and the highly personalized recommendation system.
This is where Virkkunen’s quote comes into play, as she claims that social media addiction has adverse effects on the brain development of children and adolescents. Her statement explains why an investigation into TikTok is important and thus increases the pressure on the platform. If the ongoing investigation into TikTok concludes that TikTok’s design violates the DSA, this could result in a fine of up to 6% of TikTok’s total global revenue. It is unclear exactly which studies Virkkunen is referring to in her quote. The European Commission was also unable to provide any further details on this matter.
The Impact of Social Media on the Brain
Christian Montag, professor of cognitive and neuroscience, offers an important assessment. He generally confirms Virkkunen’s statement: “Yes, I would say that’s correct. I think, in particular, the problem of encountering age-inappropriate content and cyberbullying on social media can be harmful.” He adds: “The link to psychopathological disorders (depression, anxiety, eating disorders) is somewhat more difficult to assess, as social media may be just one of many factors in a complex interplay of variables—which is not yet fully understood—that likely contribute to poorer mental health.”
He explains that features such as infinite scroll, in particular, could theoretically contribute to longer periods of online activity and might encourage addiction-like behavior in some people. At the same time, he points out that social media addiction has not yet been officially recognized as a distinct disorder.
A recent EEG study on the neurocognitive effects of social media concludes that social media influences brain activity related to attention, emotional arousal, and reward systems. The researchers observed signs of mental fatigue and sustained activation even after use. The study draws parallels to mechanisms that also occur in addictive behavior. At the same time, the authors themselves emphasize that their findings do not prove clear causal relationships and that further long-term studies are necessary.
What is striking, however, is the similarity between reward-related brain activity and the neural mechanisms involved in gambling addiction. This suggests that digital platforms may reinforce compulsive checking and prolonged usage behavior.
Expert Dr. Isabel Brandhorst points out that research on specific mechanisms such as infinite scroll is limited. According to Brandhorst, there has not yet been a study that examines the neurological effects of infinite scroll in isolation. Her assessment is therefore: While research does show correlations between platform design, extended usage times, and search-like patterns, it has not yet been able to conclusively prove which specific mechanism in the brain triggers which effect. Overall, she classifies Virkkunen’s statement as correct.
Oliver Zöllner, professor of media research, sociology of media communication, and digital ethics at the Stuttgart Media University, also supports Henna Virkkunen’s assessment. From an ethical perspective, Zöllner is particularly critical of the apps’ deliberate “addictive design,” which is geared toward “stickiness.” The goal of this ethically questionable programming is to keep users on the platforms for as long as possible in order to generate complex data that the operators can then analyze and sell in aggregated form.
Conclusion
The statement is rated as mostly true because independent expert assessments support it. However, the body of research is still limited, and it is not yet possible to draw conclusions about long-term effects. The concept of social media addiction has not yet been scientifically established; however, the process can have adverse effects on the brain. In addition, individual factors such as personality, family environment, gender, and parental guidance play a decisive role. Social media alone cannot therefore be considered the sole cause of negative developments. Overall, the available evidence supports the assumption that platforms bear shared responsibility for potentially harmful effects, especially when their design encourages risky usage patterns. However, further research will be needed in the future to clarify these relationships more precisely.
RESEARCH | ARTICLE © Fannie Liebisch, Ash Flörchinger, Lilly Schmid & Eileen Beck, Stuttgart Media University, Germany
Leave your comments, thoughts and suggestions in the box below. Take note: your response is moderated.
