Instagram CEO pushes back on ‘addiction’ claims in landmark teen harm trial

“Problematic use” or clinical addiction? A courtroom battle that could redefine Big Tech’s responsibility to children

A packed California courtroom fell silent this week as Instagram boss Adam Mosseri took the stand in one of the most closely watched tech trials in years.

On one side: grieving parents, some of whom lost their teenage children to suicide.
On the other: Silicon Valley executives defending platforms used by billions.

At the heart of the case is a question that has hovered over social media for more than a decade: are platforms like Instagram deliberately designed to hook children or are they being unfairly blamed for deeper societal problems?

Drawing a line between “addiction” and “overuse”

Under questioning from plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier, Mosseri rejected the idea that users can be clinically addicted to social media.

“I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” he told the jury.

He compared the language people use about social media to binge-watching a Netflix show, something he admitted he’s described as “addictive” in casual conversation.

But Lanier quickly pushed back, pointing out that Mosseri does not hold medical or psychological qualifications.

Mosseri conceded that he may have used the word “addiction” too loosely in the past but stressed that he has never claimed to diagnose it clinically.

The distinction may sound semantic, but in this courtroom, it could prove decisive. If the jury accepts that platforms were engineered in a way that fosters addiction comparable to substance dependency, the legal implications for Meta and Google-owned YouTube could be enormous.

A case that could set the tone nationwide

The lawsuit centres on a now 20-year-old woman identified as Kaley G.M., who allegedly suffered severe mental harm after becoming deeply immersed in social media from a young age.

According to testimony, she began using YouTube at just six years old, joined Instagram at 11, and later added Snapchat and TikTok to her digital routine.

Her case is being treated as a bellwether, essentially a test trial in a wave of more than a thousand lawsuits across the United States accusing social media companies of contributing to depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalisation, and suicide among young users.

The outcome here could influence how courts across the country handle similar claims.

“Dopamine slot machines” or evolving platforms?

Plaintiffs argue that companies like Meta and Google design their platforms to manipulate the brain’s reward systems, likening them to digital slot machines dispensing dopamine hits.

Lanier told jurors that these companies don’t just build apps, they “build traps.”

Mosseri rejected that characterisation.

He told the court that Instagram was very different when Kaley signed up, describing it as “a much smaller, more focused app” before it evolved to compete in a rapidly changing tech landscape.

Since Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012, Mosseri said the company has introduced safety features aimed at protecting younger users, even when those changes hurt engagement and revenue.

He also challenged the idea that teens are Meta’s primary profit engine, noting that younger users typically generate less advertising revenue because they lack disposable income and are less likely to click ads.

“Protecting minors over the long run is even good for the business and for profit,” he said, pushing back against the long-standing perception that Silicon Valley operates on a “move fast and break things” philosophy.

Blame, responsibility, and a wider social debate

Meta’s legal team argued that the plaintiff’s suffering stemmed from challenges in her home life rather than her time online.

YouTube’s attorney went even further, suggesting the video-sharing giant is not truly social media but more akin to a viewing platform like Netflix and not intentionally addictive.

Outside the courthouse, emotion ran high. Mothers of teenagers who had taken their own lives waited in the rain to secure seats in the public gallery. For them, this case is not about legal definitions, it’s about accountability.

On social media, reaction has been predictably divided. Critics accuse Big Tech of hiding behind semantics while profiting from endless scroll culture. Supporters argue that personal responsibility, parenting, and broader mental health challenges are being overlooked in the rush to blame apps.

The Zuckerberg moment looms

Mosseri is only the beginning.

Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify next, followed by YouTube CEO Neil Mohan. Their appearances are expected to intensify scrutiny on how tech leaders understood and managed risks to young users.

For years, internal company documents, whistleblower revelations, and Senate hearings have fuelled suspicion that platforms knew more about the mental health impact of their products than they publicly admitted.

This trial could finally put those suspicions before a jury in a way previous congressional hearings did not.

A turning point for social media regulation?

The bigger question is whether courts are the right place to solve what many see as a public health crisis.

In countries like South Africa where teenagers are among the most active social media users on the continent similar debates are emerging about screen time, cyberbullying, and the psychological toll of algorithm-driven feeds. Yet regulation remains patchy, and accountability mechanisms are still evolving.

If this California jury sides with the plaintiffs, it could open the floodgates for stricter oversight, heavier financial penalties, and potentially a rethinking of how platforms are designed for minors.

If the companies prevail, it may reinforce the argument that social media, like television before it is a tool whose impact depends largely on how it’s used.

Either way, the verdict won’t just affect one young woman’s case. It could redefine the relationship between Big Tech and the children growing up inside its algorithms.

And that’s a conversation far bigger than one courtroom.