Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri testified in a landmark California trial on , asserting that users cannot be “clinically addicted” to social media. The case, unfolding in Los Angeles, centers on allegations that Meta, Instagram’s parent company, intentionally designed its platform to be addictive, causing harm to young people. The testimony marks a pivotal moment in a legal battle that could reshape how tech companies are held accountable for the mental health impacts of their products.
The lawsuit was brought by K.G.M., a 20-year-old plaintiff who claims Instagram’s features, including endless scrolling, contributed to her depression, anxiety and distorted body image, stemming from early childhood use. Meta vehemently denies these claims, arguing that K.G.M.’s challenges predated her engagement with social media. According to a statement from Meta, evidence will demonstrate that the plaintiff faced “many significant and difficult challenges” long before using social media platforms.
Mosseri’s core argument hinges on a distinction between “clinical addiction” – a formally recognized medical diagnosis – and “problematic use.” He suggested that while individuals can develop unhealthy relationships with social media, this doesn’t equate to a clinical addiction as understood by medical professionals. This position echoes a recent statement reported by the BBC, where Mosseri indicated that even 16 hours of daily use doesn’t necessarily constitute addiction, but rather “problematic use.” He emphasized that whether usage becomes a problem is “a personal thing,” with some individuals able to use the platform extensively without experiencing negative consequences.
The trial isn’t solely focused on Instagram. YouTube is also named in the suit, while Snapchat and TikTok previously reached settlements. Mosseri’s testimony is the first from a high-profile executive, and the six-week trial is being closely watched as a potential test case for similar legal arguments aimed at holding tech firms responsible for the well-being of young users. The jury will be tasked with determining whether Instagram was a “substantial factor” in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles, a point Meta disputes.
During questioning, lead attorney Mark Lanier accused Meta and Google of intentionally creating “traps” rather than simply developing apps, alleging they engineered “an addiction in the brains of children.” Lanier presented internal documents from both companies, which he claims demonstrate a deliberate intent to maximize user engagement, even at the expense of mental health. Mosseri acknowledged Instagram’s responsibility to keep users safe, particularly young people, but maintained that determining “how much Instagram use is too much” is subjective.
The case also touches on the broader debate surrounding social media’s impact on youth mental health, with discussions occurring globally about potential regulations and restrictions. Several countries are considering social media bans for children and teenagers, following a similar approach taken in Australia. However, the effectiveness of such bans is questioned, as determined users could circumvent age restrictions, leaving them exposed to the same potential harms.
The potential financial implications of the lawsuit are significant. Should K.G.M. Prevail, Meta and other tech companies could face millions of dollars in damages. More importantly, a favorable verdict could compel these companies to redesign their platforms to mitigate addictive features. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, is scheduled to testify on , followed by Neal Mohan, CEO of YouTube, on .
The trial’s outcome is expected to have far-reaching consequences, potentially influencing numerous similar lawsuits and shaping the future of social media regulation. The core question remains: at what point does engagement with a platform transition from harmless entertainment to a harmful compulsion, and who bears the responsibility for mitigating that risk?
