Inside The Courtroom: Instagram Chief Pushes Back On Addiction Claims In Landmark Trial
In a packed Los Angeles courtroom this week, Adam Mosseri took the stand for the first time in a case that could reshape how social media companies are held accountable for the well-being of young users.
The head of Instagram told jurors he does not believe people can be “clinically addicted” to the app. While acknowledging that some individuals may use the platform more than they would like, Mosseri drew a distinction between what he described as “problematic use” and medical addiction.
“It’s relative,” he said, comparing extended scrolling to watching television longer than intended. He also noted that he is not a medical professional.
The testimony forms part of a closely watched trial against Meta, Instagram’s parent company, and YouTube. The case was brought by a 20-year-old woman identified in court documents as Kaley, who alleges that the platforms were intentionally designed with features that encourage compulsive use among young people, harming her mental health.
Her lawsuit is the first of more than 1,500 similar claims to reach trial in the United States. Legal experts say the outcome could serve as a benchmark for future cases accusing tech giants of engineering products that negatively affect children and teenagers.
A Debate Over Design
During questioning by the plaintiff’s attorney, Mosseri was pressed on features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos and the “like” button – elements critics argue are crafted to keep users engaged for longer periods. He was also asked about “beauty filters,” which can alter facial features and, according to the lawsuit, contributed to body image issues.
Internal company communications from several years ago were discussed in court, including debates over whether certain filters should be removed. Mosseri testified that while some filters promoting cosmetic procedures were banned, others that subtly altered facial features were restricted from recommendation rather than eliminated altogether.
At one point, he acknowledged that a report of Kaley spending more than 16 hours in a single day on Instagram sounded like “problematic use.”
Profits And Responsibility
The plaintiff’s legal team also questioned Mosseri about compensation and growth targets, suggesting that business incentives may influence product decisions. Mosseri responded that his focus was not on stock performance but on improving the platform’s overall experience.
Meta’s attorneys, meanwhile, argued that Kaley’s mental health struggles predated her social media use and stemmed from broader personal challenges. They maintain that Instagram was not a substantial factor in her difficulties.
In a statement issued during the proceedings, Meta reiterated its position that the evidence would show the plaintiff faced significant hardships before joining social platforms.
A Wider Reckoning
The trial unfolds against a backdrop of growing scrutiny over the effects of social media on young people. In 2021, whistleblower Frances Haugen released internal documents suggesting Instagram could negatively affect teenage girls’ well-being, intensifying global debate over platform safety.
Since then, Instagram has introduced additional safeguards, including default restrictions for teen accounts and expanded privacy controls. Mosseri previously told lawmakers he supports stronger online safety regulation.
Still, families who say they have lost children to online harms gathered outside the courthouse before dawn this week, hoping to secure seats in the public gallery. Their presence underscored the emotional weight of a case that extends far beyond a single plaintiff.
Legal observers note that the trial will likely focus on platform design rather than user-generated content, due to protections under Section 230, a US law shielding tech companies from liability for content posted by users.
As testimony continues, the central question remains whether jurors will view Instagram’s features as innovative engagement tools — or as mechanisms that crossed a line in their impact on young minds.
The verdict could shape not only the future of this case, but also the broader relationship between Silicon Valley and the millions of families who rely on its platforms every day.
