Listen to the article
Instagram Chief Disputes Social Media Addiction Claims in Landmark Trial
Instagram head Adam Mosseri testified Wednesday that he disagrees with characterizing problematic social media use as clinical addiction, a position that stands at the center of a landmark trial in Los Angeles seeking to hold tech companies accountable for alleged harms to children.
During his testimony, Mosseri carefully distinguished between what he called “problematic use” and clinical addiction. “Someone spending more time on Instagram than they feel good about… definitely happens,” Mosseri acknowledged, while maintaining that this differs from addiction in the clinical sense.
The case involves a 20-year-old plaintiff identified only as “KGM,” whose lawsuit could determine the outcome of thousands of similar claims against social media platforms. Meta Platforms and Google’s YouTube remain as defendants after TikTok and Snap settled their portions of the case.
Plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier pressed Mosseri on past statements where he had used the term “addiction” in relation to social media, presenting quotes from a podcast interview. Mosseri responded that he was “probably using the term too casually” and explained his sensitivity to addiction terminology stems from personal experience with someone “very close” to him who has struggled with serious clinical addiction.
“I’m being careful with my words,” Mosseri stated, though he acknowledged he was not speaking as a medical expert.
The testimony included an extended exchange about Instagram filters that alter users’ appearances in ways that might promote unrealistic beauty standards or interest in cosmetic surgery. Mosseri defended the company’s approach, saying, “We are trying to be as safe as possible but also censor as little as possible.” Meta ultimately shut down all third-party augmented reality filters in January 2025.
The emotional weight of the trial was evident as bereaved parents of children affected by social media issues visibly reacted during discussions of body dysmorphia and cosmetic filters, prompting the judge to remind spectators not to display reactions to testimony.
When questioned about business motives, Mosseri pushed back against suggestions that Instagram targets teens for profit, stating that Instagram actually “makes less money from teens than from any other demographic on the app.” He noted teenagers typically don’t click on ads and many lack disposable income.
However, Lanier later countered that users who join platforms at younger ages tend to remain users longer, potentially generating significant long-term revenue. Mosseri responded by framing safety and business success as aligned rather than competing interests: “It’s really hard to imagine any instance where prioritizing safety isn’t good for revenue.”
In recent years, Instagram has implemented various safety tools aimed at protecting younger users, though their effectiveness has been questioned. A report last year found that teen accounts were still being recommended age-inappropriate sexual content and material related to self-harm and negative body image. Meta called that report “misleading” and “dangerously speculative.”
The trial continues with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg expected to testify next week. The outcome could significantly impact how social media companies design their platforms and interact with younger users, while establishing precedent for liability in cases alleging harm from social media use.
Meanwhile, Meta faces another trial that began this week in New Mexico addressing similar concerns about platform safety and responsibility.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
The Instagram chief’s position seems to be that problematic social media use is more of a symptom than a true clinical addiction. That may have some merit, but I wonder if it’s just an attempt to avoid liability. Curious to see how the trial unfolds.
Good point. Downplaying the addictive nature of social media could be seen as self-serving. The court will need to weigh the evidence carefully.
Interesting perspective from the Instagram chief. While problematic social media use is certainly an issue, equating it to clinical addiction may be an oversimplification. I wonder what the research actually shows on the long-term effects and how best to address any potential harms.
That’s a fair point. The line between ‘problematic use’ and true addiction can be blurry. More nuanced study of the impacts will be important as this case moves forward.
It’s an interesting philosophical debate – at what point does heavy social media use become a true ‘addiction’ versus just problematic behavior? The Instagram chief may have a point, but I hope the court looks at the full scope of evidence and impact on users.
I’m a bit skeptical of the Instagram chief’s stance here. While not all problematic social media use may rise to the level of clinical addiction, the potential harms to mental health, especially for young people, seem quite real. This will be an important case to watch.
Absolutely. Even if not technically ‘addictive’, the negative impacts on things like self-esteem, sleep, and focus are well-documented. Tech companies need to take more responsibility.
This debate around social media ‘addiction’ touches on some deep questions about the nature of behavioral addictions and the responsibility of tech companies. I’ll be curious to see how the court weighs the evidence and arguments on both sides.
Agreed, it’s a complex issue without easy answers. The outcome of this case could set an important precedent.