LOS ANGELES – Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri testified on Wednesday that he does not believe users can be “clinically addicted” to the social media platform, but acknowledged that “problematic use” is possible. His testimony came during a landmark civil trial in California alleging that Meta, Instagram’s parent company, and Google’s YouTube intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive, particularly for young users, leading to mental health harms. The case, brought by a 20-year-old plaintiff identified as Kaley G.M., is being closely watched as it could set a legal precedent for holding social media companies accountable for the well-being of their users.
Mosseri’s statements, delivered in Los Angeles Superior Court, represent a nuanced position. He differentiated between “clinical addiction” – a medical diagnosis – and using Instagram “more than you feel good about,” comparing the latter to binge-watching television. He repeatedly emphasized that he is not a medical professional and therefore unqualified to diagnose addiction. However, he conceded that excessive use is “relative” and “personal,” acknowledging that individuals can experience negative consequences from spending too much time on the platform.
The lawsuit alleges that Instagram employs features designed to maximize user engagement, such as the endless scroll, which contribute to addictive behaviors. Kaley G.M. Claims she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age eleven, eventually expanding to Snapchat and TikTok, and attributes her subsequent depression and anxiety to her prolonged exposure to these platforms. The trial is one of over 1,500 similar cases filed against the social media giants, making its outcome particularly significant.
Meta disputes the allegations, arguing that the plaintiff’s mental health challenges predate her extensive social media use. The company’s legal team has pointed to pre-existing family instability and reported instances of abuse as contributing factors to Kaley G.M.’s difficulties. Meta also highlighted measures it has implemented to protect young users, including dedicated accounts for teenagers and parental supervision tools.
The defense of YouTube, represented by legal counsel, took a different tack, arguing that the platform shouldn’t even be categorized as a “social media” network. Instead, they characterized YouTube as a streaming service akin to Disney+ or Netflix, emphasizing that the plaintiff’s usage – averaging 29 minutes per day between 2020 and 2024 – doesn’t indicate excessive consumption. This distinction is a key element of YouTube’s strategy to distance itself from claims of addictive design.
Notably, both Snapchat and TikTok opted to settle with plaintiffs in similar lawsuits before reaching trial, suggesting a willingness to avoid the potential financial and reputational risks associated with a public courtroom battle. The financial terms of those settlements remain undisclosed.
The trial is unfolding against a backdrop of growing public concern about the impact of social media on mental health, particularly among young people. Parents who have lost children to alleged social media-related harms held a vigil outside the courthouse earlier this month, underscoring the emotional weight of the case. The testimony of Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is anticipated next Wednesday, promising further scrutiny of the company’s internal decision-making processes and its approach to user safety.
The core question before the jury is whether Instagram played a substantial role in the plaintiff’s mental health problems. The outcome of this trial could have far-reaching implications for the social media industry, potentially leading to stricter regulations, increased liability for platforms, and a fundamental re-evaluation of how these services are designed and marketed to young users. The case highlights the complex interplay between technology, mental health, and legal responsibility in the digital age.
