Instagram CEO Pushes Back as Families Confront Meta in Court

Is Instagram a product — or a psychological trap? A California courtroom is now wrestling with that question. 

The chief executive of Instagram on Wednesday rejected claims that users can be clinically addicted to social media, as he testified in a closely watched California trial that could reshape how courts view the design of digital platforms.

Adam Mosseri, appearing on behalf of parent company Meta, sought to draw a distinction between medical addiction and what he described as “problematic use.” Under questioning from plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier, Mosseri acknowledged that he may have used the word “addicted” casually in the past — likening it to binge-watching a television series — but said he was not qualified to diagnose clinical dependency.

“I’ve never claimed being able to diagnose addiction clinically,” Mosseri told the jury.

The case centers on allegations that major social media platforms, including Instagram and YouTube — owned by Google — deliberately engineered their products to hook young users for profit. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified in court filings as Kaley G.M., argues that she suffered severe mental harm after years of heavy use beginning in early childhood.

According to testimony, she began watching YouTube at age six and joined Instagram at 11, later expanding to other platforms. Plaintiffs contend that features such as algorithmic feeds and engagement loops function like dopamine triggers, encouraging compulsive behavior in vulnerable adolescents.

Mosseri countered that Instagram has evolved significantly since Facebook acquired it in 2012. He pointed to safety tools introduced over the years, some of which, he said, reduced engagement and revenue. He also disputed the notion that teenagers are the company’s most lucrative demographic, noting that younger users tend to generate less advertising income.

Attorneys for Meta and YouTube have argued that the plaintiff’s mental health struggles stem from complex personal circumstances rather than platform design. YouTube’s legal team further maintained that the service operates more as a video-viewing platform than a traditional social network.

The emotional weight of the proceedings has been palpable. In the gallery, parents who say their children suffered severe harm — including suicide — listened quietly as executives defended their companies’ practices.

More than a thousand lawsuits nationwide accuse social media firms of fostering addiction, depression, eating disorders and self-harm among young users. Legal observers say this case could serve as a bellwether, potentially influencing how courts evaluate responsibility in the digital age.

Mosseri’s testimony precedes the scheduled appearance of Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg next week — a moment that may sharpen an already defining legal confrontation over whether the platforms shaping modern adolescence were built as tools, or as traps.