Instagram Chief Rejects Claim Platform Is “Clinically Addictive” in Major Trial

The leader of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, told a court that he does not believe people can be “clinically addicted” to the app, offering testimony in a closely watched trial examining whether social media platforms harm young users’ mental health.

Mosseri appeared as a witness in a case brought against Meta Platforms, which owns Instagram and YouTube competitor services involved in broader litigation. The lawsuit was filed by a young woman identified as Kaley, now 20, who claims platform design features were intentionally created to keep minors engaged for extended periods, contributing to emotional and psychological harm.

This trial is the first among more than a thousand similar lawsuits to proceed to court and could shape how future claims against social media companies are handled. Attorneys for the plaintiff argue that engagement-focused design tools, including endless content feeds and automated playback, encourage compulsive behavior among adolescents seeking validation online.

Mosseri Describes “Problematic Use,” Not Addiction

During questioning by plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier, Mosseri said excessive use of Instagram may occur but does not equate to clinical addiction. He described heavy engagement as comparable to watching television longer than intended, emphasizing that experiences vary by individual. Mosseri acknowledged he is not a medical professional but maintained that the platform does not produce medically recognized addiction.

Mosseri also rejected claims that Instagram deliberately targets teens to maximize profits. He stated that younger users generate less advertising revenue compared with other demographics, arguing this undermines the notion that minors are a primary financial focus.

The testimony provided rare insight into the platform’s internal perspective on engagement and responsibility. Mosseri, who has led Instagram since 2018, said he had not previously testified in a trial of this scale.

Debate Over Features and Youth Impact

The case revisits longstanding concerns about social media’s influence on teenagers. In 2021, whistleblower Frances Haugen released internal research suggesting the platform could negatively affect teen girls’ self-image. Lawyers for the plaintiff argue that features such as “likes,” autoplay functions, and appearance-altering filters reinforce validation-seeking behavior and may contribute to body image concerns.

Testimony also examined Instagram’s approach to facial filters that modify users’ appearance. Mosseri explained that some filters associated with cosmetic procedures were restricted, while others that adjust facial features remained available but were no longer actively promoted. Internal communications presented in court suggested company leaders previously debated whether such filters could harm young users’ self-perception.

Lanier questioned Mosseri about compensation tied to company growth, suggesting business incentives may influence product decisions. Mosseri responded that financial performance did not guide his safety-related decisions.

Broader Legal Questions About Responsibility

The defense argues that the plaintiff’s mental health challenges stemmed from factors unrelated to social media use. Company representatives maintain the platform has introduced safety features, including enhanced privacy settings for teens and improved age verification tools.

Outside the courthouse in Los Angeles, families who say they lost loved ones due to online-related harms gathered in support of the lawsuit. Their presence underscored the emotional weight surrounding the case and the broader debate about digital platform accountability.

Legal proceedings are also shaped by federal protections that limit liability for user-generated content. Carolyn Kuhl, a Superior Court judge, directed attorneys to avoid arguments focused directly on platform content moderation, narrowing the scope of testimony.

The outcome of the trial may influence how courts evaluate claims that social media design contributes to mental health risks among young users. As scrutiny of major technology companies continues to grow, the case represents a pivotal moment in defining the balance between innovation, engagement, and user well-being.