Instagram is not an addiction but more like bingeing on Netflix shows, Adam Mosseri tells court

Instagram

• Instagram chief Mosseri says excessive use isn't clinical addiction
• Mosseri testified that protecting minors is a priority for Instagram
• Instagram restricted cosmetic surgery-like filters due to wellbeing concerns

Did our AI summary help?

Instagram chief Adam Mosseri has pushed back against the idea that social media addiction exists in a clinical sense, telling a Los Angeles court that while Instagram use can sometimes feel excessive, it does not amount to addiction.

Testifying on Wednesday in a high-profile trial examining the impact of social media on young users’ mental health, Mosseri said it was important to distinguish between “problematic use” and medical addiction. He stressed repeatedly that he is not a medical professional.

“I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” Mosseri said. He likened the casual use of the word addiction to saying one is “addicted” to a Netflix show, adding that such behaviour does not meet the definition of a clinical disorder.

Mosseri acknowledged that some users may spend more time on Instagram than they feel comfortable with. “It’s possible to use Instagram more than you feel good about,” he said, describing usage levels as subjective and personal.

The testimony comes as part of a lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “KGM” and her mother, who allege that social media companies including Meta misled the public about the safety of their platforms. The case centres on whether features such as infinite scroll contributed to harmful and addictive behaviour among young users.

Meta disputes those claims. A company spokesperson said the jury must decide whether Instagram was a “substantial factor” in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles, arguing that she faced significant challenges before using social media.

Mosseri was questioned extensively about product decisions and whether Meta prioritised growth over user wellbeing. He told the court that protecting minors was a priority and that safeguarding young users ultimately aligned with long-term business interests.

The trial also examined internal debates over digital filters that altered users’ appearances to resemble cosmetic surgery. Emails presented in court showed executives weighing wellbeing risks, potential regulatory backlash and growth concerns.

Mosseri said Instagram ultimately restricted such filters, opting for a more targeted ban rather than a blanket prohibition. While some internal discussions flagged risks to wellbeing, Mosseri insisted that filters are not a revenue driver for Instagram.

“We don’t make money from filters,” he said, adding that advertising revenue depends on how many ads users see, not on whether they use visual effects.

The case is one of several legal battles testing how much responsibility social media companies bear for the mental health of young users — and whether heavy usage should be treated as a design failure or simply a modern habit, closer to a Netflix binge than a medical condition.