LOS ANGELES: Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri on Wednesday rejected claims that users can be clinically addicted to social media, as he testified in a landmark California trial examining whether tech companies knowingly designed their platforms to hook children for profit.
Bangladesh Votes in Landmark Election Following Hasina’s Ouster
Meta — the parent company of Instagram and Facebook — and Google-owned YouTube are defendants in the closely watched civil case, which could set a significant legal precedent on whether social media giants deliberately engineered addictive features targeting minors.
“I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” Mosseri said under questioning 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.
The issue of addiction lies at the core of the trial, which centers on 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 used Snapchat and TikTok during her early teens.
Mosseri is the first senior Silicon Valley executive to testify before the jury, defending Instagram against accusations that it operates like a dopamine-driven “slot machine” for vulnerable young users.
Addressing a jury of six, Mosseri also rejected suggestions that Meta prioritised growth and profits over user safety under a “move fast and break things” culture.
“Protecting minors over the long run is even good for the business and for profit,” he said.
His testimony comes ahead of the expected appearance of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, scheduled for February 18, followed by YouTube CEO Neil Mohan.
In opening statements, attorney Mark Lanier argued that Meta and YouTube intentionally design features that exploit young users’ developing brains to maximise engagement and profits.
“Meta and Google don’t only build apps; they build traps,” Lanier told the court.
Meta’s legal team countered that the plaintiff’s suffering stemmed from personal and family circumstances, not from her use of Instagram or other platforms. YouTube’s attorney similarly argued that the video-sharing site is neither intentionally addictive nor a traditional social media platform, likening it instead to services such as Netflix or conventional television.
Stanford University professor Anna Lembke, an addiction specialist and the plaintiffs’ first witness, testified earlier that she views social media broadly as a form of drug. She also stated that young people’s brains are still developing, making them more susceptible to risk-taking behaviour, and described YouTube as a potential “gateway drug” for children.
The outcome of the trial could have far-reaching implications for the regulation and design of digital platforms used by millions of children worldwide.
