In a massive lawsuit filed in a California court, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri rejected the hypothesis that teenage social media users could be clinically addicted to social media.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, as well as Google-owned YouTube, are defendants in the lawsuit that is expected to set a legal precedent over whether popular social media platforms intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive in children.
Mosseri defends himself against claims of social media addiction
While testifying on allegations of children’s social media addiction supported by various other countries, Mosseri said it was necessary to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use. He admitted that he himself had experienced feelings of addiction to a Netflix show, but argued that it was not the same as a clinical addiction.
American women who suffered mental damage due to their use of social media
The civil motion, filed against Meta and YouTube, primarily covers allegations that a 20-year-old woman, identified as Kaley GM, suffered severe mental harm after becoming addicted to social media as a child.
She started using YouTube at age six and joined Instagram at age 11, before moving to Snapchat and TikTok two or three years later.
Mosseri was the first high-profile Silicon Valley figure to appear before the jury to defend himself against accusations that Instagram functions as little more than a dopamine “slot machine” for young people prone to addiction.
Appearing before the jury, Mosseri also rejected the idea that Meta was motivated by a “move fast and break things” philosophy that favored profit over safety.
The trial featured major figures from Silicon Valley, with Mosseri’s testimony preceding the more anticipated Mark Zuckerberg, currently scheduled for February 18. YouTube CEO Neil Mohan is also expected to testify the following day.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mark Lanier, accused Meta and Google of creating addiction among young people to gain users and profits, while Meta’s lawyer argued that the plaintiff’s suffering was due to her family background and could not be attributed to her use of Instagram or other social media.
