SAN FRANCISCO – Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri on Wednesday pushed back against claims that social media platforms are clinically addictive, as he testified in a landmark California trial that could reshape the legal landscape for Big Tech.
Meta — the parent company of Instagram and Facebook — and Google-owned YouTube are defendants in the closely watched case.
At its core is a high-stakes question: did social media giants knowingly design their platforms to hook children and profit from their engagement?
“I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” Mosseri told the court as he was questioned by plaintiffs’ 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,” he added.
Lanier quickly pointed out that Mosseri does not hold a degree in medicine or psychology.
“I’ve never claimed being able to diagnose addiction clinically,” Mosseri responded. “I’m sure I was using the word too casually.”
In the courtroom gallery, mothers of teenagers who had died by suicide sat silently, some having waited in the rain to secure seats for the hearing.
The Case at the Center
The trial revolves around allegations that a 20-year-old woman, identified as Kaley G.M., suffered severe mental harm after becoming addicted to social media as a child.
According to court filings, she began using YouTube at age six, joined Instagram at 11, and later moved to Snapchat and TikTok in her early teens.
Mosseri argued that Instagram at the time she joined was “a much smaller, more focused app” and presented fewer risks than it does today.
He highlighted safety measures introduced since Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012, acknowledging that some features designed to protect users had “negative effects” on engagement and revenue.
‘Dopamine Slot Machine’ Allegations
Plaintiffs argue that platforms like Instagram and YouTube are engineered to function as dopamine “slot machines,” particularly for vulnerable young users.
In opening statements, Lanier told jurors that Meta and Google “don’t only build apps; they build traps.”
Meta’s legal team countered that the plaintiff’s suffering stemmed from personal and family challenges, not from Instagram use.
YouTube’s attorney argued that the platform is neither intentionally addictive nor truly social media, comparing it instead to a streaming service like Netflix.
Mosseri rejected suggestions that Meta prioritized profit under a “move fast and break things” philosophy.
“Protecting minors over the long run is even good for the business and for profit,” he told jurors.
He also noted that teenagers generate less advertising revenue than adults because they have limited disposable income.
A Precedent-Setting Trial
The case is being treated as a bellwether proceeding, meaning its outcome could influence more than 1,000 similar lawsuits filed across the United States.
Mosseri’s testimony comes ahead of a highly anticipated court appearance by Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, scheduled for February 18, followed by YouTube CEO Neil Mohan.
Legal experts say the verdict could redefine how courts view social media design and corporate responsibility in the digital age.
