Scrutinizing Addictive Design Under the Digital Services Act
This piece is part of a series with the DSA Observatory, featuring articles adapted from selected papers presented at the second DSA and Platform Regulations Conference, marking two years since the Digital Services Act (DSA) came into full effect.
The European Commission Takes Action
In 2024, the European Commission intensified its scrutiny of addictive design under the DSA. Recently, formal proceedings were opened against Shein, scrutinizing the risks associated with engagement-based design mechanisms like systems that reward user activity through points or incentives, as well as the adequacy of the company’s mitigation measures.
Earlier this month, preliminary findings concerning TikTok revealed that certain design features, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, persistent push notifications, and highly personalized recommender systems, posed risks to the physical and mental well-being of users, including minors and vulnerable adults. These actions by the Commission indicate that addictive design has become a central focus of regulatory scrutiny in the EU.
What is Addictive Design?
Addictive design refers to specific interface design techniques aimed at influencing user behavior, often in ways that benefit the service provider. However, this definition is somewhat limited. A more comprehensive understanding situates addictive design as the configuration of the service as a whole, where design features, user data, and algorithmic systems are all woven together in a broader framework of engagement maximization.
Engagement Maximization
Within addictive design, features like infinite scroll or autoplay ensure that user interaction remains uninterrupted. Simultaneously, re-engagement strategies, such as push notifications, work to reel users back in. The algorithms process user data to predict what will capture a user’s attention, optimizing the content displayed based on measured engagement.
The notion of “reward” is central here. Users may experience positive outcomes from their actions—social recognition from likes or engaging content that appears after continued scrolling. The fundamental uncertainty of these rewards, reminiscent of variable rewards in slot machines, heightens engagement and can lead to compulsive behaviors over time.
The Framework of the Digital Services Act
The DSA establishes a regulatory framework for digital services in the EU. Adopted in 2022 and fully applicable since February 2024, it introduces harmonized rules regarding liability, due diligence obligations, and enforcement for online intermediary services.
The Act employs a graded approach, increasing obligations based on the role, size, and societal impact of the service. Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs)—defined as platforms reaching at least 45 million monthly active users in the EU—face the most demanding obligations.
Articles Targeting Addictive Design
Particularly relevant to addictive design are Articles 25, and 34–35 of the DSA. Article 25 prohibits online platforms from arranging their user interfaces in ways that deceive or manipulate users. Conversely, Articles 34 and 35 are exclusive to VLOPs and VLOSEs, requiring them to identify and mitigate systemic risks linked to their service design.
“Systemic risk” is not explicitly defined; however, Article 34 outlines four categories, including impacts on fundamental rights and risks to users’ physical and mental well-being. While addictive design isn’t directly mentioned, the last category aligns well with designs that foster addictive behavior.
Concerns at the political level have heightened awareness of addictive design. In the European Parliament’s Resolution of December 2023, specific features like endless scrolling and personalized recommendations were identified as risks fostering excessive use, prompting calls to address these issues within the DSA’s framework.
Risk Assessment Reports: A Comparative Analysis
The risk assessment reports for platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok provide insight into how these entities address addictive design as a systemic risk. All three platforms generally follow similar procedural frameworks for risk assessment, involving risk identification, evaluation, tiering, and engagement with experts. However, significant differences manifest in how they categorize mental well-being risks associated with addictive design.
Instagram and Facebook fail to address addictive design as a distinct systemic risk. Their reports mention mental well-being only in a broad context, suggesting that risks apply universally across problem areas without delving into specific engagement-driven harms.
In contrast, TikTok has started to integrate risks to mental well-being into its risk taxonomy. In its 2023 report, TikTok recognized ten systemic risks, introducing a new category focused on age-appropriate content and online well-being in 2024, which highlights its evolving approach.
The European Commission’s Preliminary Findings
Formal proceedings initiated by the European Commission are currently underway regarding the assessment of addictive design risks by TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and Shein. Only preliminary findings related to TikTok have been published thus far, concluding that the platform has inadequately assessed the potential harms its addictive features may pose.
The Commission pointed out that TikTok’s design features can place users in an “autopilot” mode, encouraging extended scrolling with a constant stream of new content. The analysis raised alarms over TikTok’s oversight of critical indicators of compulsive usage, such as the time minors spend on the app.
Based on these findings, the Commission preliminarily concluded that TikTok failed to fulfill its obligations under Articles 34–35, indicating a lack of reasonable, proportionate, and effective measures for mitigating risks stemming from its addictive design.
Tension Between Compliance and Business Models
A significant conflict arises between the DSA’s requirements and how VLOPs approach addictive design. Most social media platforms operate under advertising-based models, where user attention is a primary commodity. Features identified as producing systemic risks simultaneously drive revenue through prolonged engagement and the collection of behavioral data.
This situation raises questions about balancing economic freedom, as outlined in Article 16 of the Charter, against public health and user rights. Any restrictions on business practices must meet criteria of legality and proportionality.
The Each & The Explore
The European Commission’s enforcement actions illustrate the delicate balance between user protection and the freedom to conduct business. For instance, a case involving platform X emphasized that operations must serve a social function, and limitations can be justified in favor of safeguarding users’ rights.
Implications for Future Regulation
While the DSA does not explicitly define addictive design, it clearly qualifies as a systemic risk within its framework and must be addressed under Articles 34–35. Platforms are acknowledging mental well-being and prolonged usage issues, yet their compliance appears often more symbolic than responsive to the real risks posed by addictive features.
The European Commission’s findings confirm two crucial points: first, that addictive design is a systemic risk under Article 34 DSA; and second, the clarity it provides about required mitigation measures under Article 35 regarding addictive design.
Despite TikTok’s refinements to its risk assessment framework, the Commission found its approach inadequate. The analysis indicates that generic tools, like screen-time limits, are insufficient when the risk is hardwired into the platform’s configuration.
Ultimately, the Commission’s enforcement actions are beginning to draw closer the gap between formal compliance and substantive risk mitigation concerning engagement-driven harms. However, the trajectory remains incomplete, and it remains uncertain whether these actions will induce meaningful changes in platform design.