Snapchat’s parent Snap has settled a social media addiction lawsuit just days before the landmark case was due to go to trial in Los Angeles.

Terms of the deal were not announced as it was revealed by lawyers at a California Superior Court hearing, after which Snap told the BBC the parties were “pleased to have been able to resolve this matter in an amicable manner”.

Other defendants in the case include Instagram parent Meta, ByteDance’s TikTok and Alphabet’s YouTube, none of which have settled.

The plaintiff, a 19-year old woman identified by the initials K.G.M., alleged that the algorithmic design of the platforms left her addicted and affected her mental health.

In the absence of a settlement with the other parties, the trial is scheduled to go forward against the remaining three defendants, with jury selection due to begin on 27 January.

Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify, and until Tuesday’s settlement, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel was also set to take the stand.

Meta, TikTok and Alphabet did not respond to BBC inquiries seeking reaction to the settlement.

Snap is still a defendant in other social media addiction cases that have been consolidated in the court.

The closely watched cases could challenge a legal theory that social media companies have used to shield themselves.

They have long argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects them from liability for what third parties post on their platforms.

But plaintiffs argue that the platforms are designed in a way that leaves users addicted through choices that affect their algorithms and notifications.

The social media companies have said the plaintiffs’ evidence falls short of proving that they are responsible for alleged harms such as depression and eating disorders.

Adverts for five tanning companies have been banned for making misleading and irresponsible claims about the safety of sunbeds.

Ads for tanning studios The Sun Company, SunShine Co and Tanbox Towcester, as well as for Tan & Deliver Home Hire Sunbeds and Byrokko, which sells products to accelerate tanning, made “a number of problematic claims” about safety, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said.

Their misleading and irresponsible claims included that sunbed use is safe or that tanning can be achieved safely, and that sunbeds could boost vitamin D, improve mood and energy levels, and treat health conditions such as seasonal affective disorder (SAD), psoriasis and eczema.

The ASA said it found the ads using its AI-powered Active Ad Monitoring system.

The watchdog said the rulings come amid public health concerns about the risks of ultraviolet (UV) exposure and the continued popularity of tanning, with some experts highlighting the role of social media in promoting and normalising sunbed use.

Long-standing advice from the NHS and Cancer Research UK says there is no safe or healthy way to get a tan using UV radiation.

Cancer Research UK warns that sunbeds use high-intensity UV radiation for quick tanning which can damage the DNA in skin cells. This can lead to skin cancer, including melanoma, which is the most serious type.

Too much UV radiation is the third biggest cause of cancer and the main cause of skin cancer in the UK.

The ASA said the ads for all five firms were irresponsible and likely to mislead people for downplaying the risks or presenting tanning as beneficial to health.

Some of the ads also implied that sunbeds could be used to help manage medical conditions, which risked discouraging people from seeking appropriate medical advice or treatment, it added.

All five advertisers have been told the banned ads must not appear again, and that future advertising must not suggest that sunbeds are safe, provide health benefits or can be used to treat medical conditions.

The ASA’s regulatory projects manager, Jess Tye, said: “Given the serious dangers of UV exposure, it’s vital that ads for sunbeds don’t suggest that they’re safe or offer health benefits.

“These rulings demonstrate that information about health in ads must be clear, accurate and responsible.

“Protecting people from misleading or irresponsible ads is at the heart of our work and we’ll take action where ads break the rules by putting people at risk.”

All five firms have been approached for comment.

The Sun Company said: “We acknowledge the ASA’s ruling in relation to an early social media post made shortly after opening. The specific content referenced in the ruling has been removed, and we have reviewed our advertising practices to ensure full compliance going forward.

“Customer transparency and regulatory compliance are important to us.”