Brussels takes aim at infinite scroll, autoplay, and the algorithm

The European Commission has formally told Meta that its social networks — Facebook and Instagram — are built to hook users, not just connect them. On Friday, regulators announced preliminary findings that Meta’s platforms violate the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA) by deploying design tricks that drive compulsive use.

The commission specifically calls out infinite scroll, autoplay videos, push notifications, and hyper-personalized recommendation algorithms. These features, the EU argues, push the brain into “autopilot mode” and fuel an urge to keep swiping. The result? Unhealthy habits and compulsive behavior, especially among minors and vulnerable adults.

This isn’t a slap on the wrist. If the findings are confirmed after Meta’s formal response, the company faces a fine of up to 6% of its global annual turnover. For a business that reported over $134 billion in revenue last year, that’s potentially billions of dollars.

Why the EU says Meta’s design is dangerous

The commission’s investigation zeroes in on how Meta’s interface exploits psychological vulnerabilities. “Evidence also shows that Meta’s current mitigation measures failed to effectively tackle the risks stemming from its addictive design,” the commission wrote in its announcement.

Take screen-time tools. Instagram and Facebook offer them, and they’re even activated by default for teens. But the EU says these tools are too easy to dismiss. They don’t meaningfully reduce usage. A teenager can tap past a break reminder in seconds and keep scrolling through Reels until 2 a.m.

The commission also accuses Meta of ignoring data about how much time minors spend on the platforms at night — and how features like Stories and Reels specifically encourage overuse. The DSA requires platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks to users’ well-being. Meta, the EU says, failed to do that adequately.

What Meta must change — or else

The commission isn’t just complaining. It’s demanding specific fixes:

• Disable autoplay and infinite scroll by default. Users could still turn them on, but the default experience would stop feeding content endlessly.
• Introduce effective screen-time breaks that can’t be easily dismissed.
• Overhaul recommendation algorithms so they’re less driven by engagement metrics and more focused on user safety.

These changes would fundamentally alter how Facebook and Instagram work. Infinite scroll and autoplay are core to the platforms’ stickiness. So is the algorithm that surfaces content based on what keeps you watching, not what’s good for you.

Meta now has a chance to review the evidence and submit a formal defense. The findings aren’t final. But the clock is ticking.

This isn’t Meta’s first EU showdown — and it won’t be the last

Friday’s announcement is the second time this year the commission has found Meta in breach of its laws. In April, regulators said Meta failed to prevent children under 13 from using Facebook and Instagram — a direct violation of the DSA’s child safety provisions.

Meanwhile, Meta is fighting similar battles on the other side of the Atlantic. In a court filing on Monday, the company revealed that four U.S. states are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties. The states allege Meta designed its platforms to addict young users and misled the public about safety risks.

The EU’s action adds another layer of regulatory pressure. Meta has not yet responded to requests for comment on the commission’s latest findings.

What the DSA means for Big Tech — and for users

The Digital Services Act, which took full effect in February 2024, is Europe’s most ambitious attempt to rein in platform power. It requires large platforms like Facebook and Instagram to systematically assess and mitigate risks — from illegal content to addictive design.

This case is a test of whether the DSA can actually force change. The commission’s focus on design features, not just content moderation, signals a broader shift. Regulators are looking under the hood at how platforms are built, not just what users post.

For users, the potential changes could mean a less frictionless experience. No more endless scroll. No more videos that start playing automatically. But also, possibly, less time lost to apps designed to capture attention.

Meta still has room to argue its case. But the message from Brussels is clear: the era of designing for maximum engagement at any cost is ending.

Fresh allegations in an old feud

The legal battle between two anonymous college social apps just got a lot messier. Fizz, the Stanford-born platform where students gossip and network without using their real names, has accused a venture capitalist of playing both sides — and leaking the startup’s private playbook to its direct competitor, Sidechat.

In a new court filing reviewed by TechCrunch, Fizz claims that Jerry Lu, a partner at Seattle-based venture firm Maveron, met with Fizz’s founders under the pretense of exploring an investment. Instead, the startup alleges, Lu turned around and handed over confidential business details to Sidechat’s parent company, Flower Ave Inc.

The filing drops a bomb on a question that haunts every founder who pitches VCs: How safe is the sensitive data you share during fundraising?

What Fizz says Lu took — and where it went

Fizz’s founders, Teddy Solomon and Ashton Cofer, sat down with Lu in March 2022. According to the complaint, they shared non-public information about everything from user metrics and campus-launch strategies to the company’s ambassador program and product roadmap. Standard stuff for a pitch meeting — if you trust the person across the table.

The filing includes a screenshot of a text message showing Lu passing notes to Flower after that meeting. Fizz claims Lu continued feeding Sidechat information about the startup’s fundraising efforts and other strategic matters long after the initial conversation.

Lu eventually invested in Sidechat’s second seed round in October 2023, per PitchBook data. But Fizz’s lawyers argue he was coordinating with Sidechat as early as 2022 — well before that formal investment.

A mutual acquaintance and a leaked investor deck

The allegations don’t stop with Lu. Fizz also names Jack Burlinson, described as a mutual acquaintance of the founders and Lu, who allegedly shared Fizz’s investor deck and its fall summary for investors with Lu. That information, Fizz claims, then traveled directly to Sidechat.

Burlinson reached out to TechCrunch separately to push back. He said he had “no knowledge that Sidechat existed until this article” and that Lu approached him under false pretenses, claiming he wanted to invest in Fizz. “Jerry collected this information from me under false pretenses,” Burlinson wrote.

Neither Lu nor Maveron responded to requests for comment. Fizz declined to comment on the record.

Sidechat’s new owners say they inherited the mess

Kyle Venn, CEO of both Yik Yak and Sidechat, told TechCrunch that the alleged events happened long before his team acquired Sidechat in 2025. “No one on today’s operating team was involved,” Venn said via email. He stressed that the filing contains allegations, not court findings, and that Sidechat will address the matter through the legal process.

Venn added: “We’re currently focused on making a great product, not suing other apps.”

Flower Ave Inc. acquired Yik Yak, a once-dominant anonymous app, back in 2023. The company now runs both Yik Yak and Sidechat under Venn’s leadership.

Why this case matters for every startup founder

The Fizz lawsuit highlights a structural vulnerability in the venture capital model. Founders routinely hand over detailed financials, growth metrics, and product roadmaps during fundraising. They do it because they have to. But the system relies on a handshake-level assumption: that investors won’t shop that intel to portfolio companies or rivals.

This isn’t the first time that assumption has cracked. Several high-profile disputes in recent years have centered on VCs allegedly sharing confidential data. But the Fizz case is unusually vivid — a text-message screenshot, a named partner at a well-known firm, and a direct pipeline to a competitor.

Fizz originally sued Sidechat in 2023 over a laundry list of alleged dirty tricks: disrupting campus launches, spreading false rumors about hackers accessing Fizz’s data, filing fake spam reports to Instagram, and even paying students to delete the Fizz app. Lu wasn’t named in that original complaint. The new filing adds an insider-trading-style twist to an already bitter rivalry.

What happens next

The case is still in discovery. Fizz’s lawyers are likely to push for more communications between Lu, Maveron, and Sidechat’s previous owners. Sidechat’s new management will try to distance itself from actions taken before the acquisition. And Lu — unless he breaks his silence — will face questions about whether a standard pitch meeting turned into something far less ethical.

For founders watching from the sidelines, the lesson is uncomfortable but clear: Trust, but verify. And maybe think twice before sharing your full product roadmap with a VC who hasn’t committed.

From interim to permanent: Schneider takes the reins

Four months into the job, Toni Schneider is finally shedding the “interim” tag. The Bluesky CEO announced Friday that he’s now the platform’s permanent chief executive, putting an end to any speculation about a leadership search.

Schneider took over in March after Jay Graber stepped down as CEO to become Bluesky’s chief innovation officer. Graber had led the company since its early days as a Twitter spinoff. Schneider, who previously founded Automattic — the company behind WordPress and Tumblr — came in as an experienced hand from the investor side. He’s also a partner at True Ventures, a venture capital firm that, along with Automattic, has money in Bluesky.

“I’m four months into my interim CEO role at Bluesky, and it’s time for an update,” Schneider wrote on his personal blog. “Most importantly, as of today, the interim part of the title is gone. I’m loving the mission and the job, and I’m all in as Bluesky’s official CEO.”

What Schneider wants to build next

Schneider didn’t just make an announcement — he laid out a roadmap. One of his first priorities, he said, is to “create smaller spaces and more private communities” on the platform. That’s a notable shift for a social network that, until now, has focused heavily on the public, broadcast-style feed that made Twitter famous.

“That would unlock the next wave of growth and innovation,” Schneider wrote, without offering a detailed timeline or specific features. It’s a clear signal that Bluesky wants to compete not just with X (formerly Twitter) but also with private messaging apps and community-focused platforms like Discord or even Facebook Groups.

The Graber era: 43 million users and a new protocol

Under Graber’s leadership, Bluesky hit 43 million users. That’s small compared to X’s hundreds of millions, but impressive for a platform that started as a niche experiment. Graber also oversaw the expansion of the AT Protocol, the decentralized system that lets Bluesky and other apps share the same social graph.

The AT Protocol is Bluesky’s long-term bet. If it works, developers could build their own apps on top of Bluesky’s network — think Mastodon, but with better usability. It’s a vision that echoes what the web was supposed to be: open, interoperable, and not owned by any single company.

But the momentum has slowed

Lately, though, Bluesky has hit a rough patch. User growth has stalled. Engagement is down. Some observers have started asking whether the platform is dying. The numbers tell a mixed story: Bluesky saw a huge spike in sign-ups after Donald Trump’s re-election, when Elon Musk was most active in politics on X. But that surge didn’t last. The platform has since seen a drop-off.

Schneider acknowledged the challenge indirectly. “We’re at the very beginning of this story,” he wrote Friday. It’s a line that sounds optimistic, but it’s also an admission that Bluesky hasn’t yet proven it can sustain growth beyond a political news cycle.

Can Bluesky survive without the X exodus?

The big question hanging over Bluesky is whether it’s a real social network or just a refuge for people fleeing Elon Musk’s X. The spike after the 2024 U.S. election suggests the latter. But a healthy platform needs its own reason to exist — not just a reason to leave somewhere else.

Schneider’s answer is to build features that keep people around: private communities, smaller groups, better tools for conversation. It’s a strategy that worked for WhatsApp and WeChat, both of which started as simple messaging apps and grew into ecosystems. But Bluesky is starting from a much smaller base.

He also has the backing of deep-pocketed investors — Automattic and True Ventures are both insiders. That gives him time to experiment. But time isn’t infinite. Social media is a winner-take-most market, and Bluesky is competing against X, Threads, Mastodon, and a dozen other platforms.

What’s next for Bluesky under permanent leadership

Schneider’s first task is to stabilize the user base. That means proving Bluesky can grow even when there’s no political crisis driving people off X. His second task is to deliver on the AT Protocol promise — making it easy for developers to build on top of Bluesky without needing a PhD in decentralized systems.

Neither is easy. But Schneider has been through this before. He led Automattic through WordPress’s transition from a blogging tool to a web platform. He knows how to build infrastructure that attracts developers. And he knows how to manage a company that’s trying to grow without losing its soul.

“We’re at the very beginning of this story,” he said. For Bluesky, that story is still being written. Whether it becomes a footnote or a new chapter in social media depends on what Schneider does next.