Instagram chief Adam Mosseri tells a US court that social media is not “clinically addictive,” as a jury weighs claims that Meta designed features to hook teenagers.
 |
| As a jury examines whether Instagram harmed a young user’s mental health, its chief argues that problematic use does not equal clinical addiction. Image: CH |
Los Angeles, California, United States — February 27, 2026:
The debate over whether social media platforms are engineered to be addictive took center stage in a US courtroom this week, as Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, testified that it is not possible to become “clinically addicted” to social media.
Appearing in a case against Meta Platforms, Mosseri acknowledged that some users may engage with Instagram at what he described as a “problematic level,” but he rejected the characterization of such behavior as addiction. Usage patterns, he argued, vary widely from person to person, with some individuals able to regulate their time effectively while others may struggle with overuse.
The testimony comes amid a lawsuit filed by a 20-year-old plaintiff, identified in court as “Kelly,” who alleges that Meta deliberately designed Instagram with features intended to keep teenagers on the platform for extended periods. According to the complaint, this prolonged engagement contributed to significant mental health challenges.
Central to the plaintiffs’ case are design elements such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, visible “like” counts and beauty filters. They argue these features create psychological reinforcement loops that encourage prolonged use, particularly among adolescents. Court proceedings revealed that the plaintiff spent more than 16 hours per day on Instagram at certain points, a figure Mosseri described as potentially “problematic,” though not evidence of clinical addiction.
The plaintiff’s lawyer pressed Mosseri on whether teenagers were specifically targeted because of their long-term commercial value. He denied that profit motives drove youth-focused design decisions, stating that revenue derived from teenage users represents a relatively small portion of Meta’s overall earnings.
Mosseri also disclosed details of his compensation, noting a base salary of approximately $900,000 annually, with total compensation including bonuses and stock options potentially exceeding $10–20 million. He emphasized that his personal financial interests do not influence product development decisions, an assertion likely intended to counter arguments that engagement-driven features are motivated by executive incentives tied to company performance.
Meta’s legal team has argued that the plaintiff’s mental health challenges cannot be attributed solely to Instagram use, pointing to family and personal factors that may have played a role. The defense position underscores a central legal hurdle in such cases: proving that platform design was a substantial factor in causing or worsening psychological harm.
The jury is now tasked with navigating a complex intersection of technology, behavioral science and corporate responsibility. At stake is not only the outcome for one plaintiff, but also a broader question confronting lawmakers, regulators and families across the United States and beyond: whether heavy social media use constitutes addiction in a clinical sense, and if not, how platforms should be held accountable for patterns of excessive engagement among teenagers.
As scrutiny of digital platforms intensifies worldwide, the court’s eventual decision may help shape the legal and regulatory framework governing how social media companies design products for young users in the years ahead.