Listen to the article
In a high-stakes California courtroom on Wednesday, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri took the stand to defend his platform against allegations that it deliberately addicted children for profit. The testimony marked a pivotal moment in what legal experts describe as a landmark trial that could reshape how social media companies operate.
“I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” Mosseri stated under questioning from plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier. “I’m sure I said that I’ve been addicted to a Netflix show when I binged it really late one night, but I don’t think it’s the same thing as clinical addiction.”
Lanier quickly challenged Mosseri, pointing out that the Instagram chief lacks credentials in medicine or psychology. Mosseri conceded: “I’ve never claimed being able to diagnose addiction clinically. I’m sure I was using the word too casually.”
The civil trial centers on a 20-year-old woman identified as Kaley G.M., who allegedly suffered severe mental harm after becoming addicted to social media platforms at a young age. She began using YouTube at six years old, joined Instagram at 11, and later added Snapchat and TikTok to her digital repertoire.
Meta—the parent company of Instagram and Facebook—and Google-owned YouTube stand as co-defendants in the case. The outcome could establish a precedent for determining whether social media giants can be held legally responsible for deliberately designing addictive platforms that harm children’s mental health.
In the courtroom gallery, mothers of teenagers who died by suicide sat restraining their emotions. These representatives of families with complaints against major platforms had waited in the rain outside the courthouse to secure seats for the proceedings.
Mosseri attempted to draw a distinction between the Instagram that Kaley joined and the platform as it exists today. “The Instagram that Kaley signed up for was very different and presented a much smaller set of risks back then,” he testified, describing it as “a much smaller, more focused app” that evolved with changing digital landscapes.
The CEO highlighted safety features implemented since Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012, acknowledging that some had “negative effects” on user engagement and company revenue. This admission appears aimed at countering the central allegation that platforms like Instagram function primarily as dopamine “slot machines” for vulnerable young users.
Meta’s defense strategy includes arguing that the plaintiff’s suffering stemmed from troubles in her home life rather than social media use. YouTube’s legal team has maintained that their platform isn’t technically social media but rather a viewing venue similar to Netflix, and that it wasn’t intentionally designed to be addictive.
When questioned about Meta’s corporate philosophy, Mosseri rejected the characterization that the company operated on a “move fast and break things” principle that prioritized profits over safety. “Protecting minors over the long run is even good for the business and for profit,” he contended.
Industry watchers are now turning their attention to upcoming testimony from Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, scheduled for February 18, followed by YouTube CEO Neil Mohan the next day. These appearances by Silicon Valley’s most powerful executives underscore the trial’s significance.
In his opening statement earlier this week, attorney Lanier framed the case in stark terms, telling jurors that YouTube and Meta “don’t only build apps; they build traps” engineered to create addiction in young people’s brains for the sake of user retention and profits.
Mosseri countered with a business perspective, noting that Instagram actually generates less revenue from teenage users than from adults because younger users typically have less disposable income and are less likely to engage with advertisements.
The case represents just one of more than a thousand lawsuits accusing social media companies of fostering addiction among young users, allegedly leading to depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalization, and in some cases, suicide. As a bellwether proceeding, Kaley G.M.’s case could set the tone for similar litigation across the United States, with potential industry-wide implications for how social media platforms are designed, regulated, and monetized.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
While the Instagram CEO may have used the term ‘addiction’ too casually, the broader concerns about the mental health impacts of social media platforms are valid and deserve serious scrutiny.
The Instagram addiction case raises some complex issues around social media and mental health. It will be interesting to see how this high-profile trial plays out and whether it leads to any meaningful changes in how platforms operate.
You make a good point. This case highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability from social media companies when it comes to the impacts of their platforms, especially on young users.
The challenge of defining and measuring social media addiction is a thorny one, but the broader mental health concerns raised in this case shouldn’t be dismissed. Platforms need to take these issues more seriously.
It’s concerning to hear about the alleged mental harm caused by excessive social media use, especially for young people. Hopefully this trial can shed more light on the potential addiction risks and lead to better safeguards.
I agree. More research is clearly needed on the links between social media and mental health, particularly for vulnerable demographics like children and adolescents.
This trial highlights the urgent need for greater oversight and regulation of the social media industry, particularly when it comes to protecting vulnerable young users. It will be a landmark case to watch.
While the Instagram CEO may have misspoke, the core allegations about deliberate platform design choices that contribute to user addiction are serious and warrant a rigorous legal examination.
This trial could set an important precedent for how social media platforms are held accountable for the potential harms caused by their products. It will be fascinating to see how it unfolds.
Agreed. A ruling against Instagram could have far-reaching implications for the entire tech industry and how it approaches user engagement and safety.
This trial could have major implications for how social media companies design and market their platforms in the future. It will be watched closely by many stakeholders, from lawmakers to public health advocates.
Absolutely. Platforms like Instagram need to take more responsibility for the potential harms caused by their products and services, especially when it comes to young users.
The Instagram CEO’s testimony raises some interesting questions about how we define and measure addiction, especially in the digital age. This will be a complex issue to navigate.
Good point. Establishing clear diagnostic criteria for social media addiction will be crucial as these types of cases become more common.