Instagram Chief Testifies that 'Problematic' Usage of Social Media Differs from 'Clinical Addiction'

Instagram head Adam Mosseri testified in a Los Angeles courtroom Wednesday that while “problematic” social media usage exists, he does not believe it constitutes clinical addiction.

CNBC reports that Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram for Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, appeared in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday as part of a high-profile trial examining allegations that major social media companies misled the public about platform safety. During his testimony, Mosseri addressed questions about social media addiction and the design choices behind Instagram’s features.

When questioned about addiction, Mosseri drew a distinction between casual use of the term and clinical definitions. “I’m sure I said this, but I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” Mosseri stated, noting multiple times that he lacks medical training. He explained that people sometimes use the word addiction casually, comparing it to saying one is addicted to a Netflix show, which does not represent actual clinical addiction.

Mosseri acknowledged that excessive social media use can be problematic. “So it’s a personal thing, but yeah, I do think it’s possible to use Instagram more than you feel good about,” he said. “Too much is relative, it’s personal.”

The trial centers on allegations that Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap misled the public about app safety while knowing certain design choices and features fostered detrimental mental health effects in young users. TikTok and Snap were originally defendants but settled with the plaintiff and are no longer involved in the case.

The specific plaintiff in the Los Angeles trial is identified as KGM and her mother, who allege that tech companies designed features like infinite scroll that resulted in addictive behavior and negative mental health issues. A Meta spokesperson responded to the allegations by stating, “The question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles.” The spokesperson added, “The evidence will show she faced many significant, difficult challenges well before she ever used social media.”

Plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier questioned Mosseri extensively about his role as a decision maker at Instagram, particularly regarding whether he prioritized profit or child safety when making product decisions. “In general, we should be focused on the protection of minors, but I believe protecting minors over the long run is good for business and for profit,” Mosseri responded.

A significant portion of the testimony focused on Instagram’s handling of plastic surgery digital filters. Lanier presented email exchanges from November 2019 showing Meta executives debating whether to ban filters that alter photos to make faces appear as if they had undergone plastic surgery. The emails revealed internal discussions about potential mental health impacts and competitive considerations.

In the email chain, Meta’s technical chief Andrew Bosworth informed CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the plastic surgery filter issue. “He is concerned about whether we have good enough data that this represents real harm,” Bosworth wrote regarding Zuckerberg’s position.

Former Meta executive John Hegeman expressed concern in the emails that “a blanket ban on things that can’t be done with make-up is going to limit our ability to be competitive in Asian markets (including India).” Hegeman advocated for a more nuanced framework rather than a complete ban.

Mosseri was presented with an email where he was asked to choose among three options regarding the filters. The first option involved a temporary ban with potential growth limitations. The second option would lift the ban but remove filters from recommendations, carrying notable wellbeing risks. The third option would completely lift the ban with the highest wellbeing risk but lowest growth impact.

Mosseri indicated he preferred the second option, which prompted Meta executive Margaret Stewart to respond, “I respect your call on this and I’ll support it, but want it to just say for the record that i don’t think its the right call given the risks.” Stewart supported banning the filters entirely.

Mosseri repeatedly told the courtroom that Meta ultimately implemented a more focused ban affecting a subset of digital filters. During cross-examination, he explained that filters are used by a minority of users for creative expression and do not generate revenue for the company.

“We want to help people express themselves. But when it comes to revenue, that’s based on how many ads people see on Instagram,” Mosseri said. “I haven’t seen any data that suggests using filters drives content consumption or ads. It’s not a revenue decision.”