Instagram CEO Rejects Social Media Addiction Claims During Major California Trial

Instagram chief Adam Mosseri has rejected claims that social media platforms create addictive behaviour, drawing a distinction between excessive use and clinical dependency while testifying in a high-profile California court case.

Speaking under oath on Wednesday, Mosseri argued that social media use should not be described as addiction in medical terms. His testimony comes as part of a broader legal battle in which families and school districts accuse major tech companies of designing platforms that negatively affect young users’ mental health.

Mosseri Draws Line Between Addiction and Problematic Use

During his appearance on the witness stand, Mosseri emphasised that social media addiction is not formally recognised as a clinical condition by psychologists. He said it is necessary to separate medically defined addiction from what he described as problematic or excessive usage.

Although the medical community has not officially classified social media addiction as a disorder, researchers have identified links between compulsive platform use and negative psychological outcomes among young people. Concerns about the potential addictive nature of social media have also attracted attention from regulators and policymakers worldwide.

Mosseri is the first executive to testify in a series of related cases involving Meta, Snap, TikTok, and YouTube. The lawsuits, filed by hundreds of families and educational institutions, claim the companies deliberately engineered their products to encourage compulsive use and harm minors’ mental wellbeing.

The Case at the Center of the Trial

The initial proceedings in Los Angeles focus on a 20-year-old plaintiff identified by the initials KGM. She alleges that Instagram’s design features, including continuous scrolling mechanisms, intensified her depression and contributed to suicidal thoughts.

The case is part of a set of bellwether trials, which serve as test cases intended to reveal how juries may respond to the broader wave of lawsuits against social media companies.

Lawyers for the plaintiff argue that design choices aimed at increasing user engagement created psychological risks, particularly for younger audiences.

During cross-examination, plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier questioned Mosseri about whether Instagram prioritised growth and revenue over user safety. He also raised concerns about the platform’s cosmetic filters, suggesting they may encourage interest in plastic surgery among users.

Mosseri responded that Instagram evaluates features intended for younger audiences before releasing them and seeks to balance safety with freedom of expression. He told the court that the company attempts to protect users while limiting excessive restrictions on content.

However, the testimony drew strong reactions from some families involved in the lawsuit. Matthew P. Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center and an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the testimony reinforced concerns that platform growth had been prioritised over protecting minors.

Internal Communications Under Scrutiny

The trial has also brought attention to internal communications among Meta employees referenced by the plaintiffs’ legal team. According to statements presented in court, some internal discussions acknowledged the potentially addictive nature of social media platforms.

One internal message described Instagram as comparable to a drug, while another suggested social media companies function similarly to dealers distributing addictive products. A separate exchange referenced biological and psychological responses linked to platform engagement, including dopamine-related effects.

These internal communications have been presented by plaintiffs as evidence that company leaders were aware of potential risks associated with platform design.

Families Share Personal Losses

Several parents who believe social media contributed to harm suffered by their children attended the hearing. Among them was John DeMay, whose 17-year-old son Jordan died in 2022 after becoming the target of an online sextortion scheme.

According to reports presented in court, two Nigerian brothers allegedly used a hacked Instagram account to impersonate a girl and blackmail the teenager after he shared explicit images. They demanded payment and threatened to distribute the content to his contacts.

DeMay said he expected the testimony to focus on defending the company’s actions but believes the public nature of the proceedings is already significant. He argued that internal documents and executive testimony provide greater public scrutiny of platform practices.

Broader Legal Arguments and Industry Response

The trial follows opening arguments earlier in the week, during which plaintiffs’ lawyers cited internal company documents to argue that social media platforms actively targeted young users. Some applications were described as resembling digital gambling systems because of features such as endless scrolling.

Lawyers representing YouTube rejected claims that the platform should be classified as social media or that users develop addiction to its services. Meta’s legal team also challenged the scientific basis of social media addiction claims and argued that the lead plaintiff’s mental health challenges were primarily related to personal and family circumstances rather than platform use.

Questions Over Platform Safety Tools

In recent years, Instagram has introduced several features aimed at improving safety for younger users. These include controls intended to limit harmful interactions and reduce exposure to certain types of content.

However, a 2025 review conducted by Fairplay, a nonprofit organisation focused on reducing technology’s influence on children, concluded that many of these tools were ineffective. The report found that fewer than 20 percent of the measures functioned fully, while a majority were either ineffective or discontinued.

A New Legal Strategy Against Tech Platforms

Rather than focusing on harmful posts or individual user behaviour, the lawsuits target the design of social media platforms themselves. Plaintiffs argue that companies intentionally built systems that encourage prolonged engagement and compulsive usage.

This approach allows the cases to avoid some of the protections offered by federal law, which typically shields technology companies from liability related to third-party content shared on their platforms.

Courts Seen as Path to Industry Change

Some families involved in the lawsuits believe legal action may be more effective than legislative reform in forcing change within the technology industry.

DeMay said he attended a U.S. Senate hearing in January 2024 where technology executives addressed child safety concerns but expressed limited confidence in regulatory solutions. He suggested that financial pressure from lawsuits could compel companies to adjust their practices.

According to him, large legal settlements could force social media companies to implement stronger protections or risk significant economic consequences.

A Defining Moment for the Social Media Industry

The ongoing trials represent one of the most significant legal challenges faced by major social media companies. The outcomes could influence how courts interpret platform responsibility, shape future regulation, and redefine expectations around user safety in digital environments.

As testimony continues, the proceedings are expected to play a central role in determining how technology companies balance engagement-driven design with the wellbeing of their users, particularly young audiences.