What is formally recognised today
The World Health Organization added "gaming disorder" to its International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) in 2019 (WHO, 2020), defining it as loss of control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities, and continuation despite negative consequences, over a period of at least 12 months (WHO, 2020). The broader notion of "internet addiction", however, remains scientifically debated (OFDT): many researchers think it is less a dependence on the medium (the internet) than on the specific activities it makes possible (gaming, social media, pornography, online shopping).
Accounts to follow
Submit your account
A little history
The worry was born with games: the arcades of the late 1970's (Space Invaders dates from 1978) and then consoles gave rise to the word "hooked" applied to a pastime. In 1995 the New York psychiatrist Ivan Goldberg invented "internet addiction disorder" as a joke (Indian J Psychiatry, 2008); the following year Kimberly Young presented the first serious studies (Curr Psychiatry Rev, 2012), and in the 2000's China opened treatment centres, sometimes military-style, for teenagers.
The smartphone of 2007 and social networks changed everything: the subject was no longer a small group of gamers but the whole population, and the attention-capturing mechanisms (infinite feed, notifications, short videos) are designed by the platforms themselves. In 2019 the WHO entered "gaming disorder" in the international classification of diseases, in force since 2022 (WHO, 2022); it does not, to date, recognise addiction to social networks or to the smartphone as a diagnosis.
Responses have become legislative: phones banned in French lower secondary schools in 2018 (Légifrance, 2018), social networks banned for under-16s in Australia, applied since December 2025, and the European Digital Services Act, which has prohibited targeted advertising to minors since 2024 (European Union (EUR-Lex), 2022). Research itself remains divided on the real size of the effects (OFDT), which is no reason not to act when a habit has taken over everything.
Warning signs
- Inability to cut down despite wanting to (APA, 2023).
- Progressive abandonment of social, school or work activities in favour of screens (APA, 2023).
- Marked irritability or anxiety when unable to connect (APA, 2023).
- Using screens to escape negative emotions rather than for occasional entertainment (APA, 2023).
- Lying to those around you about the time actually spent online (APA, 2023).
Intense use for a period (a holiday, a temporary passion for one game) is not in itself pathological (OFDT). It is the persistence of these signs over several months, with a real impact on daily life (WHO, 2020), that should be a cause for concern.
What medicine says: two diagnoses, not a "screen addiction"
Time spent in front of a screen is never enough on its own to speak of addiction. What matters is loss of control, the place the behaviour takes at the expense of relationships, sleep and work, and its continuation despite the damage. The WHO classification (ICD-11) currently retains only two diagnoses linked to digital use: gaming disorder (code 6C51), grouped with gambling disorder among the disorders due to addictive behaviours (WHO, ICD-11), and compulsive sexual behaviour disorder (code 6C72), classed among the impulse control disorders (Kraus et al., World Psychiatry, 2018). In the second case, the behaviour becomes the centre of the person's life and impairs their functioning as a partner, in the family or at work over a prolonged period, in the order of several months (Kraus et al., World Psychiatry, 2018). Distress that stems only from a moral or religious judgement about the practice is not enough to make this diagnosis (Grubbs et al., 2019).
As for figures, a US survey of the general population found that 10.3% of men and 7.0% of women reported clinically significant distress linked to difficulty controlling their sexual urges and behaviour (Dickenson et al., JAMA Netw Open, 2018); these data do not concern France and do not say how many people meet the diagnosis of a disorder. As for "social media" or "screens" as a whole, the French monitoring centre OFDT points out that there is no scientific consensus on addiction in the strict sense (OFDT).
Screens and pornography in a couple: three situations to tell apart
The scientific literature invites us not to lump everything together. First situation: moderate recreational use, known and accepted by both partners, which researchers distinguish from problematic use. Second situation: a clash of values. A person who finds pornography morally unacceptable feels dependent even though their use is not compulsive in the medical sense; work on moral incongruence shows that this suffering is real but is not the same problem (Grubbs et al., 2019). The same goes when the discovery of hidden use is experienced as a betrayal: the wound to trust matters even without an addictive disorder. Third situation: compulsive use, often several times a day, which serves to calm anxiety or escape a conflict, takes the place of intimacy with the partner and continues despite the suffering (this is the picture of code 6C72) (Kraus et al., World Psychiatry, 2018).
To get your bearings, clinicians ask themselves five simple questions: have you tried several times to cut down without managing it? Does the screen mainly serve to escape an emotion or a difficult conversation? Do you need ever more time or more intense content for the same effect? Does the behaviour continue despite lack of sleep, lower desire, lateness at work or a crisis of trust in the couple? Has it lasted a long time, generally at least a year for gaming disorder (WHO, ICD-11)? Several "yes" answers are a reason to talk to a professional, though this questionnaire does not replace a diagnosis.
Secretly going through your partner's phone is not a solution: it reinforces shame and secrecy, and the useful step is to talk about what you feel rather than to monitor.
Technoference and "phubbing": when the phone comes between two people
Technoference refers to the interruptions of couple and family life by technology (McDaniel, 2018), and "phubbing" to ignoring your partner in favour of your phone during a meal, a conversation or in bed. A study of romantic partners linked this behaviour to lower satisfaction in the relationship (Roberts and David, 2016). This link is a correlation: it does not prove that the phone alone causes arguments, since a relationship that is already strained may also push someone to take refuge in the screen.
Sleep is the other sensitive point. The French health agency Anses recommends limiting exposure to blue light in the evening (Anses), and keeping phones out of the bedroom is a simple step that protects both falling asleep and moments of intimacy. In October 2026, Santé publique France noted that one person in two still looks at a screen at bedtime and one in three during meals (Santé publique France, 2026).
Social media and mental health
Several studies, particularly in adolescents, associate very heavy social media use with lower self-esteem (OFDT) and an increase in anxious or depressive symptoms (WHO, 2024), notably through constant social comparison. Causality is nevertheless still debated among researchers: young people already struggling psychologically may also turn more to these uses.
A few practical approaches
- Set screen-free times and places (meals, bedroom at night) rather than blanket bans, which are often counterproductive.
- Use the built-in screen-time tools to get an objective picture of real use, which is often underestimated.
- With a teenager, favour dialogue over abrupt prohibition, and try to understand what the digital use is filling (boredom, social isolation, anxiety).
- See a psychologist or a doctor if there is a marked effect on sleep, schooling or social relationships.
Where to find help, free of charge, in France
France's addiction treatment, support and prevention centres (CSAPA) also take in addictions without a substance, such as video games or online gambling: care there is free and can remain anonymous (Code de la santé publique). The OFDT lists nearly five hundred of them (OFDT). To find a service or talk to someone, the official site of the French inter-ministerial drugs agency (MILDECA) gives the number of Drogues Info Service, 0 800 23 13 13 (a French service, anonymous and free) (MILDECA). For betting and gambling, Joueurs Info Service can be reached on 09 74 75 13 13 (also French); the voluntary self-exclusion procedure run by the French gambling regulator (ANJ) is strictly personal (ANJ).
Cognitive behavioural therapy is one of the approaches studied for gaming disorder: a 2019 meta-analysis concludes that it is beneficial, while stressing that the quality of the trials is still uneven (Stevens et al., 2019). In private practice, the French "Mon soutien psy" scheme lets you see a psychologist who is part of the scheme without going through a doctor, for up to twelve sessions a year (Assurance Maladie). A partner can also be supported as a relative.
The French framework in 2026
The expert commission on screens, whose report was handed to the President of the Republic on 30 April 2024, proposed age benchmarks: no screens before three, no mobile phone before eleven, no connected smartphone before thirteen and no social media before fifteen (Élysée, 2024). The law of 21 May 2024 on securing and regulating the digital space gives the media regulator Arcom powers against pornographic sites that do not check their users' age (Légifrance, 2024), and Arcom has published an age-verification framework (Arcom). More recently, Santé publique France states that Parliament voted in July 2026 to ban social media for under-fifteens, that the Constitutional Council struck it down, that the ban on phones in upper secondary schools came into force at the start of the school year, and that the European Commission presented a proposed regulation, the "Kids Act", in mid-September (Santé publique France, 2026). These rules change fast: check the text in force on Légifrance before taking any step.
State of the research
As of 30 October 2026, the reference frameworks are stable, but the evidence remains partial. Reviews of cognitive behavioural therapy for gaming disorder are encouraging but rest on trials of limited size (Stevens et al., 2019); work on phubbing consists mostly of self-reported surveys, and therefore of correlations (Roberts and David, 2016); the figures on sexual distress come from a US survey (Dickenson et al., JAMA Netw Open, 2018). None of these studies allows the conclusion that a screen "makes you dependent" on its own: they describe risks and profiles, not a fatality.
