Rehab clinic in the US treats technology addiction like heroin

At age six, Sarah Hill got her first iPad from her parents and used it to play Angry Birds and Minecraft whenever she got bored. By 21, the Alabama youngster had immersed herself so deeply into virtual reality experiences and gaming that she stopped seeing friends, showering and brushing her teeth. “If you compare addiction to video games and technology to drugs,” she says, “virtual reality is the meth of drugs.”

In college, she spent so much time isolated in her room, compulsively accessing a chatbot website, Character AI, on her cell phone, that she ended up failing some classes. “I remember the night I told my parents that I had lied about everything and that I had failed,” she recalls. “They had no words. They said, ‘You can go.’ I went to my room, but the last thing I saw was my mother leaning her elbows on the counter and crying. It was the worst thing I’ve ever seen.”

Also read: US court sees negligence of Meta and YouTube in case of network addiction

Hill’s parents traveled with her from Alabama to a city outside Seattle and enrolled her in reSTART, one of the country’s few residential programs for digital overuse treatment, which treats technology addiction as a risk comparable to that of alcohol or drugs.

Customers must abstain from the internet, smartphones, games and other technologies — often for months. On the first day without screens, Hill lay in bed and cried.

Hill and other reSTART patients are at the center of an intense debate about how addictive modern technology can be. Previously restricted to academic articles and table conversations, the discussion has reached the courts, with a series of landmark cases against Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap. (The latter two reached agreements this year. TikTok declined to comment, and Snap did not respond.)

These first pilot cases are closely watched because their outcomes can create precedents for thousands of similar actions — and even force changes in companies’ products and business models.

Some are already talking about a “Big Tobacco moment” — a reference to the 1990s lawsuits against tobacco companies, which proved that they knew about the addictive potential of nicotine and the risks of smoking, resulting in billion-dollar compensation.

On March 25, jurors in California dealt a blow to Meta and YouTube by validating the concept of “technology addiction,” ruling that the companies were negligent in the design or operation of their platforms.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, identified as KGM, received total compensation of US$6 million. Now 20 years old, she stated that “addictive design” — such as infinite scrolling, filters and automatic playback — led her to spend up to 16 hours a day on the platforms, causing depression, anxiety, distorted body image and self-harm.

“We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options,” a Meta spokesperson said after the ruling. A representative for Google, YouTube’s parent company, also stated that the company disagrees and intends to appeal. “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social network,” he declared.

Big tech companies have long denied accusations of “addictive design,” saying they seek to balance freedom of expression and user safety.

They also question the very concept of “technology addiction”, claiming there is no scientific evidence that their products caused the reported problems.

The head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, said in court that social networks are not “clinically addictive”.

In a note prior to the verdict, Meta pointed to other factors in KGM’s life as the cause of his difficulties: “The evidence does not support reducing a lifetime of challenges to a single factor.”

During the trial, a Google spokesperson, José Castaneda, stated that the accusations against YouTube were “simply false”. “Providing a safer and healthier experience for young people has always been central to our work,” he said, citing tools and policies aimed at protecting minors.

But concerned parents — along with researchers, health organizations and even former technology executives — warn that the systems essential to modern life may be incompatible with human well-being.

They point to psychology and neuroscience studies that show that social networks release dopamine in a similar way to drugs such as methamphetamine or heroin. With the advancement of AI, pressure is growing for stricter regulation and more effective security mechanisms.

“Unfortunately, technology is taking young people away from what is most important for their mental health: human relationships,” says New York University professor Scott Galloway.

According to him, the companies’ goal is to capture attention: “I don’t think they set out to depress global youth. But the algorithms discovered that anger, self-esteem and cat videos keep people online.”

There is, of course, a difference between the “mild addiction” that many admit — checking emails in bed, scrolling through TikTok in line — and the deep dependency that lands people in rehab or the courts. Still, the line between a bad habit and behavioral addiction can be blurred, especially among young people whose lives revolve around the same devices.

“I’m finally saying, ‘I want to break out of this never-ending cycle.’ I need to do something to better myself and my life.”

That’s precisely the point, says Roger McNamee, investor and author of Zucked. “These companies live off attention,” he says. “Then, they began to shape choices to influence profitable behaviors. This model inevitably generates harm.”

In the US, with strong protections for freedom of expression, the government barely regulates how companies interact with users. For McNamee, this had serious effects: technology went from being a tool of empowerment to becoming a mechanism for control and extraction of value, harming democracy, public health and the economy.

The reluctance to impose limits, especially in the age of AI, “should worry everyone,” he says.

$1,000 per day residential program for dependents

About 40 km from Seattle, among towering pine trees, is the reSTART clinic. With motivational posters and phrases like “Healing is not linear”, the place houses up to 16 patients, who share rooms and do household chores. They also participate in 24 to 30 hours of therapy per week. Treatment costs around US$1,000 per day and lasts, on average, 12 to 16 weeks.

Co-founder Cosette Rae opened the center with therapist Hilarie Cash nearly two decades ago after noticing her own excessive use of technology.

She remembers a case from 2009: a young man who refused to leave the house, playing World of Warcraft nonstop. Diagnosed with agoraphobia, he actually suffered from technology addiction. With no treatment options, they created their own center.

At first, Rae was “idolized and rejected.” Many did not believe in the problem, but demand grew: around a thousand patients have been treated since then.

According to Rae, it’s harder to give up technology than drugs, because it’s everywhere. “You have to say no all the time.”

It’s more like an eating disorder: you can’t completely abandon it, but you need to change the relationship.

The problem doesn’t just affect teenagers. There are patients even in their 50s. In addition to gaming, common addictions include virtual reality, pornography, and AI chatbots.

A 23-year-old student reports getting stuck in games, YouTube and Discord: “Technology was supposed to make life better, but it made mine worse.”

The dopamine debate: what the science says

Some scientists claim that compulsive use activates the brain’s reward system like drugs. Dopamine reinforces behavior, making it difficult to resist, even with losses.

Studies show brain changes similar to those of addictions like gambling.

Technology addiction is not officially in the manual of mental disorders in the US, but “online gaming disorder” is already recognized for study.

“I don’t think technology set out to depress young people, but its algorithms have figured out what holds attention.”

For Rae, it doesn’t matter: it took decades for the game to be recognized.

The science is still inconclusive. A 2023 Oxford study found small and inconsistent effects.

Other researchers argue that calling it an addiction can be harmful because it makes people feel out of control.

Nir Eyal says that the problem is not just technology: every generation fears new tools. The focus should be on making them better and safer.

He states that attractive products always generate dependence in some users — and that this is not necessarily unethical.

With the rapid evolution of AI, the debate tends to intensify. Rae fears it will replace human relationships. “It’s not just about jobs, it’s about our humanity.”

Can laws, product changes and clinics protect young people?

If the addiction is recognized, the question arises: what to do? States like New York and California already require alerts on social media.

Federal regulation is slow. Proposals such as the Smart law did not advance. Australia has banned networks for under-16s; other countries are studying similar measures. The platforms have created usage controls and limits, as well as digital well-being initiatives.

Rae advocates that companies invest in treatment for affected users. It also suggests limiting access after a certain period of use.

Sarah Hill has left the center and lives in an apartment connected to the clinic. Use a simple cell phone, without apps. Still, he notices relapses. “I felt like I was losing control again.” Despite this, he is optimistic: “I want to get out of this endless cycle. I need to improve my life.”

Six Questions to Assess Your Technology Use

The reSTART clinic suggests questions such as:

How often do you think about online activities?
Are you irritable or anxious without access?
Have you tried to reduce your use without success?
Have you lost interest in offline activities?
Have you ever lied about your time online?
Have you damaged relationships or opportunities because of this?