Pennsylvania is suing TikTok over ‘addictive’ features, but regulation isn’t black and white

Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday announced a civil lawsuit against TikTok on August 11, 2026, in Allegheny County Court. The complaint accuses TikTok of violating consumer protection laws and harming youth through deceptive practices and addictive features. The Attorney General asserts two main charges: false statements about content containing mature themes, and knowingly creating platform features designed to cause excessive and compulsive use, particularly affecting young users.

The company denies the allegations, stating that the lawsuit relies on misleading and inaccurate claims and ignores safety measures TikTok has implemented. As a public policy professor with expertise in addictive product marketing, I believe that while products and services can lead to compulsive behaviors, they do not neatly fall into black-and-white categories of addictive or non-addictive. Lawsuits that label defendants as either liable or not liable risk oversimplifying complex trade-offs that require nuanced analysis.

Historically, binary thinking has dominated discussions about addictive goods. Drugs like heroin were banned outright, whereas everything else was considered neutral or safe. However, the reality is more complex. While alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine can cause various levels of problems, they have not been lumped together with drugs like heroin. Similarly, gambling, which activates similar neural pathways as drug addiction, is regulated differently based on the level of risk involved.

Countries around the world have implemented varying degrees of regulation for gambling, from outright bans to strict limits on casino visits. These measures aim to prevent gambling problems while allowing adults to enjoy the activity responsibly. I do not advocate for specific regulatory approaches but suggest that debates about these issues should be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand.

The Pennsylvania lawsuit argues that TikTok is engineered to trap users and maximize their engagement for revenue generation. This argument is reminiscent of tactics used by cigarette manufacturers, such as enhancing nicotine absorption to maintain addiction. However, the concept of keeping users continuously engaged is a common strategy across industries, from casinos to gym memberships.

While it is true that some products, like fentanyl, can lead to addictive or self-destructive behavior even in controlled settings, not all products produce the same intensity of response. Video games, milkshakes, and music can also trigger dopamine release, but the intensity is far lower than that of drugs like cocaine or heroin. Therefore, simply recognizing the existence of a dopamine response should not lead to an automatic ban.

Ideally, legislatures would strike a balance between protecting consumers and preserving freedom, taking into account the varying degrees of risk associated with different products and features. However, recent legislative efforts have been hindered by partisan divisions and commercial interests. When courts step in to regulate, as in the case of Pittsburgh Public Schools suing TikTok for inducing compulsive use and causing mental health costs, the outcome depends on the specific circumstances of each case.

While I do not endorse specific regulatory measures such as blocking youth social media accounts, I believe that debates about the addictive nature of certain products and features deserve serious consideration. Binary distinctions between good and bad products do not adequately capture the complexities of modern technology and its impact on society.