The chief of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, told a court that he does not believe the platform can cause clinical addiction, offering pivotal testimony in a high-profile lawsuit examining social media’s effects on young users’ mental health.
Mosseri appeared as a witness in legal proceedings against Meta Platforms, the company that owns Instagram. The case was filed by a young woman identified as Kaley, who alleges that design elements within the platform were intentionally structured to keep minors engaged for extended periods, contributing to psychological harm. The trial is the first among many similar lawsuits to reach court, potentially shaping how future claims against technology companies are evaluated.
Platform Use Described as Excessive, Not Addictive
During questioning from plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier, Mosseri acknowledged that users may sometimes spend more time on Instagram than they intend. However, he rejected the idea that such engagement amounts to a medical addiction. He characterized heavy usage as a behavioral issue that varies by individual rather than a clinically defined condition.
Mosseri also disputed claims that Instagram intentionally targets teenagers for financial gain. He stated that younger users typically generate less advertising revenue than adults, suggesting that business incentives do not revolve around maximizing teen engagement.
His testimony offered insight into how the company interprets user behavior and its responsibility for the platform’s influence on well-being.
Scrutiny of Features Linked to Youth Experience
The trial revisits ongoing concerns about the effects of social media on adolescents. In 2021, whistleblower Frances Haugen released internal research indicating that certain platform features could negatively affect teen self-image. Attorneys for the plaintiff argue that tools such as continuous scrolling, autoplay content, and public approval metrics may encourage prolonged engagement and validation-seeking behavior.
Court proceedings also examined Instagram’s use of appearance-altering filters. Mosseri stated that filters associated with cosmetic procedures were restricted, while others that adjust facial features remained available but are no longer actively promoted. Internal discussions presented in court suggested company leaders previously debated the potential psychological impact of such tools.
Lanier also questioned whether executive compensation tied to company performance could influence product decisions. Mosseri responded that financial considerations did not drive safety-related choices.
Broader Debate Over Tech Industry Responsibility
Meta’s legal team argues that factors unrelated to social media played a larger role in the plaintiff’s mental health challenges. The company states that it has implemented measures aimed at improving user safety, including enhanced privacy protections for teenagers and updated age verification processes.
The proceedings are taking place in Los Angeles, where families concerned about online harms have gathered in support of stronger oversight of digital platforms.
Legal arguments are also shaped by federal protections that limit liability for content created by users. Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the case, instructed attorneys to avoid arguments focused on specific user-generated content, narrowing the issues presented at trial.
The verdict may have significant implications for how courts address claims involving social media design, user engagement, and corporate responsibility for youth well-being.
