Instagram’s head executive, Adam Mosseri, testified in a high-profile trial in Los Angeles that he does not believe users can be clinically addicted to Instagram or other social media, drawing a distinction between clinical addiction and what he described as “problematic use,” amid plaintiffs’ claims that platforms were purposefully designed to hook young people; Mosseri told jurors that spending more time on the app than someone feels good about does not equate to clinical addiction and emphasized that addiction is a medical diagnosis beyond his company’s purview, while opposing lawyers challenged that position with internal communications and broader mental-health concerns from users. Source accounts note the case’s focus on whether Meta‘s Instagram and Google‘s YouTube engineered addictive features and whether that conduct contributed to harms among youth, with Mosseri defending design choices and differentiating social media use from medical addiction.
Sources
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/instagram-addiction-doesnt-exist-according-to-apps-top-executive-5984438
https://apnews.com/article/a49f64e21682e8bc1b98fbdf3d061579
https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/instagram-ceo-denies-addiction-claims-in-landmark-us-trial/article_c1b7d10c-2b74-513b-b1b7-3734833c0038.html
Key Takeaways
• Instagram boss Adam Mosseri told a Los Angeles trial that he does not accept the idea of clinical addiction to social media and prefers the term “problematic use.”
• The testimony comes in a major case where plaintiffs argue that Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube deliberately engineered features that hook users, especially children.
• Opposing counsel in the case highlighted internal messaging and design choices to counter Mosseri’s stance and tie behaviors to deeper concerns about prolonged use and well-being.
In-Depth
In a spotlight legal battle unfolding in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Adam Mosseri, head of the enormously influential social media platform Instagram, took the stand and delivered testimony that’s resonating well beyond the courthouse walls. At the center of this lawsuit are claims that major tech companies engineered their services to be addictive, with plaintiffs alleging that Instagram and other platforms intentionally designed features that keep users, including minors, glued to screens. These claims form the core of a landmark case that could have wide-ranging legal and societal implications.
Mosseri’s position was clear and consistent: Instagram does not cause clinical addiction. When asked directly whether he believes it’s possible for users to be addicted to Instagram, Mosseri drew a firm line between clinical addiction, which is a medical diagnosis, and what he termed problematic use, referring to situations where individuals may feel they spend more time on the app than they’d prefer. That distinction was crucial to his testimony, and he emphasized that the company steers clear of using the term “addiction” in a clinical sense because it’s not a medical authority and lacks the training to make such determinations.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys, however, pushed back, presenting internal communications and previous remarks to argue that Meta’s own language has sometimes casually likened heavy use of Instagram to addiction. Those exchanges, legal teams argued, show awareness of deep engagement patterns and raise questions about whether the company prioritized growth and time-on-site over user well-being. In contrast, Mosseri maintained that describing the platform’s impact as problematic rather than addictive more accurately reflects the nuance of users’ experiences.
This case isn’t limited to abstract principles; it carries real implications for families and regulators concerned about the mental health of younger users. Plaintiffs are presenting stories that tie heavy social media engagement to anxiety, depression, and other challenges, and lawyers for tech companies are striving to show that prolonged use isn’t synonymous with clinical addiction and that broader societal or personal issues often play a larger role.
Mosseri’s testimony highlights a growing tension in public discourse: whether traditional medical concepts like addiction are apt for describing behaviors around social media engagement, or whether the platforms should instead be understood through other frameworks. As the trial continues, with additional key figures expected to testify and evidence unfolding, this legal showdown could influence how society, lawmakers, and courts view responsibility for social media’s effects on users. The outcome could shape policy, corporate practices, and broader societal debates on digital life and mental health.