Kentucky’s 2024 case against TikTok produced the claim behind the “35 minutes” headline. The state described internal company material suggesting users could become hooked after 260 videos, a run of clips that could take less than 35 minutes. It was a lawsuit’s account of research, rather than a medical test of when addiction begins.
The concern still deserved examination. But a company’s measure of repeated use, an allegation made in court papers and a clinical diagnosis are different things. Keeping them separate makes the number easier to understand without making it more certain than the evidence.
Where the number came from
The minutes were a conversion, not a stopwatch reading for every user. The 260-video figure was described as a habit-forming milestone, with the time depending on the clips’ length and speed of playback. Watching for that long did not establish an identical condition in everyone.
Kentucky’s October 2024 case was one of several state actions about TikTok and young users. Redaction problems exposed complaint material, which prompted reporting on the company’s internal communications and research. That was the setting in which the figure circulated.
Keep the attribution when repeating it. A number from allegations in a lawsuit should not become a free-standing statement that the matter has been settled.
The dispute over engagement tools
Kentucky challenged features designed and promoted to encourage repeated viewing. Its complaint alleged that TikTok’s knowledge about younger users did not match the safeguards it described publicly. TikTok disputed that characterization and pointed to protections it offered young users.
Internal documents can be material in a case without making every allegation a court finding. The claims remained contested, and citing company research does not remove that distinction.
An app timer also needs to be considered through what it changes. The presence of a setting is not the same as evidence that it reduces use meaningfully or prevents harm. That question needs evidence about its effect.
Keep the legal and health questions separate
If a young person’s app use is disrupting everyday life, talk about what has changed. Sleep, attention and finding it difficult to stop can be concerns to discuss, with appropriate professional advice when needed. A headline alone cannot supply a diagnosis.
Parents can begin by looking through account settings together and agreeing on practical limits. Check how that arrangement works for the child’s age and the household. The existence of a setting does not guarantee an outcome.
This is an account of claims made in 2024 and of what the “35 minutes” number meant. It does not establish a universal addiction threshold or describe TikTok’s present legal position through a deadline reported years earlier.
