Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri told a California court on Wednesday that he does not believe social media use should automatically be labeled as a clinical addiction. He was testifying in a major trial that is examining whether companies like Meta and YouTube intentionally designed their platforms to hook children in order to boost profits.
Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, along with Google’s YouTube, are facing a case that could shape future legal standards around social media and addiction. The lawsuit questions whether these companies knowingly created features that encourage compulsive use among young people.
During questioning by plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Lanier, Mosseri stressed the difference between clinical addiction and what he described as problematic or excessive use. He explained that people often use the word “addicted” casually, such as when binge watching a Netflix series late into the night, but that does not mean it qualifies as a medical diagnosis. When Lanier pointed out that Mosseri does not have medical or psychological training, Mosseri agreed and said he has never claimed to diagnose addiction and may have used the term too loosely in the past.
The courtroom atmosphere was tense. Mothers of teenagers who had died by suicide sat in the gallery, listening quietly. Some families involved in similar lawsuits had waited outside the courthouse in the rain to secure seats.
At the center of the trial is a 20 year old woman identified as Kaley G.M., who claims she suffered severe mental harm after becoming deeply attached to social media from a young age. She began using YouTube at six years old, joined Instagram at 11, and later started using Snapchat and TikTok in her early teens.
Mosseri argued that Instagram was very different when Kaley first joined. He described it as a smaller and more focused app at the time, suggesting it carried fewer risks before it evolved to keep up with changing trends. He also pointed to safety features introduced after Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012, noting that some of these measures reduced user engagement and revenue.
Mosseri became the first high profile Silicon Valley executive to testify before the jury. He rejected the idea that Instagram operates like a dopamine driven slot machine for vulnerable young users. Meta’s legal team argued that the plaintiff’s struggles were more closely linked to difficulties in her personal and home life rather than to her use of social media.
A lawyer for YouTube similarly denied that the platform was intentionally addictive. He described YouTube as more comparable to a viewing service like Netflix rather than a traditional social network.
Before a jury made up of six men and six women, Mosseri also pushed back against the perception that Meta prioritizes rapid growth and profits over user safety. He stated that protecting minors is not only the right thing to do but is also beneficial for the company in the long term.
Mosseri’s testimony comes ahead of an expected court appearance by Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, with YouTube CEO Neil Mohan scheduled to testify shortly after.
In his opening statement, plaintiffs’ lawyer Lanier told jurors that Meta and YouTube design their products in ways that deliberately tap into young users’ brains to maximize engagement and profits. He argued that these companies create systems that lure and hold young people’s attention.
When asked about revenue, Mosseri said teenagers actually generate less advertising income compared to older users because they are less likely to click on ads or have money to spend.
Social media companies are currently facing more than a thousand lawsuits across the United States. Many of these cases claim that the platforms contributed to addiction, depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalizations, and even suicide among young users.
The case involving Kaley G.M. is seen as a key test. Its outcome could influence how similar lawsuits are handled in courts nationwide and may help define the future legal responsibility of social media companies.
