Trending 
Instagram Chief Executive Adam Mosseri has rejected claims that users can be clinically addicted to social media, as he testified in a landmark trial in California examining whether tech firms deliberately designed their platforms to hook children for profit.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, and Google-owned YouTube are defendants in the high-profile civil case. The proceedings could establish a legal precedent on whether social media companies intentionally engineered their platforms to be addictive to young users.
While under questioning from plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Lanier on Wednesday, Mosseri drew a distinction between medical addiction and excessive use.
“I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” he told the court.
“I’m sure I’ve said I was addicted to a Netflix show when I binge-watched it late one night, but that’s not the same as clinical addiction,” he added.
The case centres on allegations that a 20-year-old woman, identified as Kaley G.M., suffered severe psychological harm after becoming addicted to social media from an early age. She began using YouTube at six, joined Instagram at 11, and later signed up to Snapchat and TikTok.
Mosseri became 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 children. He also rejected claims that Meta followed a “move fast and break things” philosophy, prioritising growth and profit over user safety.
“Protecting minors over the long term is good for the business and for profit,” he said.
His testimony comes ahead of the expected appearance of Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, scheduled for February 18, with YouTube CEO Neil Mohan due to testify the following day.
Lawyers for Meta argued that the claimant’s mental health struggles stemmed from her family circumstances rather than her use of social media. YouTube’s legal team maintained that the platform was neither intentionally addictive nor, strictly speaking, a social media service.
“YouTube sells the ability to watch something essentially for free on your computer, on your phone, on your iPad,” the company’s lawyer said, comparing it to Netflix or traditional television.
Earlier in the trial, Stanford University professor Dr Anna Lembke testified for the plaintiffs, describing social media as akin to a drug. She argued that young people’s brains are still developing, making them more prone to risk-taking behaviour, and likened YouTube to a “gateway drug” for children.
The trial is scheduled to run until 20 March.
Social media companies currently face more than 1,000 lawsuits in the United States alleging that their platforms contribute to addiction, depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalisation and even suicide among young users.
Kaley G.M.’s case serves as a bellwether trial, with its outcome likely to influence similar cases nationwide. Two additional test trials are due to take place in Los Angeles before the summer, while a broader federal lawsuit will proceed in Oakland, California.
Separately, a lawsuit filed in New Mexico this week accuses Meta of prioritising profits over protecting minors from sexual exploitation.
