Instagram’s top executive Adam Mosseri stepped into unfamiliar territory this week, taking the witness stand to deny that users can become “clinically addicted” to the platform he has led since 2018. His testimony came in a groundbreaking trial brought by a 20-year-old woman identified only as Kaley, who alleges that Instagram and YouTube deliberately built features designed to psychologically trap young users — with devastating consequences for her mental health.
The case is the first of more than 1,500 similar lawsuits to reach a courtroom and is being closely watched as a potential turning point in how the law treats social media companies and their responsibility toward minors. If the jury sides with Kaley, it could open the floodgates for cases that fundamentally reshape how tech platforms are allowed to operate.
When questioned by plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier about whether Instagram routinely chooses growth over the safety of children, Mosseri rejected the premise. He acknowledged that some users experience “problematic use” of the app but likened it to watching more television than one personally feels comfortable with — stopping well short of calling it addiction. He was quick to note, when challenged on clinical definitions, that he holds no medical qualifications. He also argued that teenagers are actually the least profitable demographic on the platform, countering suggestions that the company deliberately courts young users for financial gain.
Internal Emails and Hidden Research Paint a Troubling Picture
Some of the most damaging moments of Mosseri’s testimony came courtesy of Meta’s own internal records. Documents from 2019 revealed that company executives had debated banning facial alteration filters after experts were described as being unanimous about the psychological harm they posed to young users. One internal message explicitly warned that such filters were pushing teenage girls toward body dysmorphia. Instagram initially moved to ban the filters entirely but later reversed course, ultimately choosing to remove certain filters from recommendation feeds rather than eliminating them altogether. At the time that softened policy took effect, Kaley was just 14 years old.
Lanier also introduced an internal Meta research project known as “Project Myst,” which reportedly concluded that children who had already experienced emotional difficulties were the most likely to develop compulsive usage habits — and that parents were largely powerless to intervene. Mosseri said he recognized the study but could recall nothing specific about its findings.
Billion-Dollar Pay and the Question of Who Really Comes First
The financial dimension of Mosseri’s role also drew scrutiny. Lanier revealed that the Instagram chief’s total annual compensation — including stock options and performance bonuses — can surpass $20 million in a strong year. The attorney pressed Mosseri on whether decisions about features like beauty filters and engagement tools were at least partially driven by protecting platform growth and, by extension, his own earnings. Mosseri flatly denied it, insisting that share price never factored into his product decisions.
Kaley’s lawsuit claims she began using Instagram at age nine — four years below the platform’s minimum age requirement of 13 — and was exposed to features her legal team describes as psychologically manipulative, including infinite scroll, autoplay, and the “like” button. Her attorneys have compared these tools to reward-based mechanisms designed to encourage compulsive behavior. The suit further alleges she suffered body dysmorphia, bullying, and sextortion while using the platform. On one occasion, records show she spent more than 16 consecutive hours on the app. “That sounds like problematic use,” Mosseri acknowledged when presented with that figure.
Meta has pushed back firmly, arguing that Kaley’s mental health struggles existed well before she ever created an account and are rooted in personal life circumstances unrelated to social media. The trial continues, with the jury ultimately tasked with deciding whether Instagram bears meaningful responsibility for the harm experienced by a user who, under the platform’s own rules, should never have been allowed to sign up.
Leave a Reply