In a huge lawsuit filed in California court, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri has rejected the notion that teenage social media users may be clinically addicted to social media.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, is a defendant along with Google-owned YouTube in the lawsuit, which is expected to set a legal precedent on whether popular social media platforms intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive to children.
Mosseri defends himself against accusations of addiction to social media
During his testimony about allegations of children’s addiction to social media supported by various other countries, Mosseri argued that it is necessary to distinguish between clinical addiction and problematic use. He admitted that he himself had experienced a feeling of addiction to a Netflix show, but argued that this was not the same as clinical addiction.
American women who suffered psychological harm due to social media use
The civil petition, filed against Meta and YouTube, primarily covers allegations that a 20-year-old woman, identified as Kaley GM, suffered serious psychological harm after becoming addicted to social media as a young child.
She started using YouTube at six and joined Instagram at 11 before moving on to Snapchat and TikTok two or three years later.
Mosseri was the first known Silicon Valley figure to appear before the jury to defend himself against accusations that Instagram acts 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” mindset that favored profit over safety.
The trial has seen the appearance of major Silicon Valley figures, with Mosseri’s testimony ahead of a more anticipated appearance by Mark Zuckerberg, currently scheduled for February 18. YouTube CEO Neil Mohan is also expected to testify the next day.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mark Lanier, has accused Meta and Google of planting addiction in young people in order to gain users and profits, while Meta’s lawyer has argued that the plaintiff’s suffering was due to her family connection and could not be attributed to her use of Instagram or other social media.
