Is social media clinically addictive? Instagram chief says no in trial
Instagram head Adam Mosseri told a Los Angeles court that he does not believe people can be clinically addicted to social media. His testimony comes in a landmark case seeking to hold platforms accountable for alleged harms to children.
Adam Mosseri, the head of Meta’s Instagram, testified during a landmark social media trial in Los Angeles that he disagrees with the idea that people can be clinically addicted to social media platforms. The issue of addiction is a key pillar of the case, in which plaintiffs are seeking to hold social media companies responsible for alleged harms to children who use their platforms. Meta Platforms and Google’s YouTube are the two remaining defendants in the case, after TikTok and Snap reached settlements.
Bellwether trial could shape thousands of lawsuits
At the centre of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM”. Her lawsuit could influence how thousands of similar cases against social media companies unfold.
She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases designed to show both sides how their arguments may be received by a jury.
‘Clinical Addiction’ vs ‘Problematic Use’
Mosseri told the court that it is important to distinguish between clinical addiction and what he described as problematic use.
The plaintiff’s lawyer presented quotes from a podcast interview in which Mosseri appeared to suggest the opposite. Mosseri clarified that he may have used the term “too casually,” saying people often do so in conversation.
When questioned about his qualifications to comment on the legitimacy of social media addiction, Mosseri stated that he is not a medical expert. However, he added that someone “very close” to him has experienced serious clinical addiction, which is why he said he was “being careful with my words”.
He explained that he and his colleagues use the term “problematic use” to describe “someone spending more time on Instagram than they feel good about, and that definitely happens”. Mosseri also said that it is “not good for the company, over the long run, to make decisions that profit for us but are poor for people’s wellbeing”.
Debate over cosmetic filters and body image
Mosseri and the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mark Lanier, engaged in a lengthy exchange about cosmetic filters on Instagram that altered users’ appearances in ways critics argue promote plastic surgery.
“We are trying to be as safe as possible but also censor as little as possible,” Mosseri said.
During courtroom discussions about body dysmorphia and cosmetic filters, bereaved parents of children who had struggled with social media appeared visibly emotional. In January 2025, Meta shut down all third-party augmented reality filters.
The judge addressed members of the public following the emotional exchanges, reminding them not to show agreement or disagreement with testimony, stating it would be “improper to indicate some position”.
Teen safety measures under scrutiny
In recent years, Instagram has introduced several features and tools that it says are aimed at making the platform safer for young users. However, these measures have faced criticism.
A report last year found that teen accounts created by researchers were recommended age-inappropriate sexual content, including “graphic sexual descriptions, the use of cartoons to describe demeaning sexual acts, and brief displays of nudity”.
The report also said Instagram recommended “a range of self-harm, self-injury, and body image content” to teen accounts, which it stated could reasonably lead to adverse impacts, including poor mental health, self-harm, and suicidal ideation and behaviours.
Meta described the report as “misleading” and “dangerously speculative,” saying it misrepresented the company’s efforts on teen safety.
Separate trial in New Mexico
Meta is also facing a separate trial in New Mexico that began this week.
ALSO READ: Realme increases prices of smartphones by up to Rs 4,000: Check updated rates