In a huge lawsuit lodged in the California court, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri has rejected the assumption that teenage social media users could be clinically addicted to social media.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, along with Google-owned YouTube, are defendants in the trial which is expected to set a legal precedent regarding whether popular social media platforms intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive to children.
Mosseri defends against social media addiction allegations
During his testimony over allegations about kids’ social media addiction that are supported by various other countries, Mosseri asserted that it is necessary to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use. He admitted that he himself had experienced a sense of addiction to a Netflix show, but argued that this was not the same as clinical addiction.
US women who suffered mental harm due to social media use
The civil petition, submitted against Meta and YouTube, primarily covers allegations that a 20-year-old woman, identified as Kaley G.M., suffered severe mental 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 renowned Silicon Valley figure to appear before the jury to defend himself against accusations that Instagram works as a little more than a dopamine “slot machine” for young people who are prone to addiction.
Present before the jury, Mosseri also rejected the idea that Meta was motivated by a “move fast and break things” ethos that preferred profit over safety.
The trial has seen the appearance of major Silicon Valley figures, with Mosseri’s testimony preceding a more anticipated appearance of Mark Zuckerberg, currently scheduled for February 18. YouTube CEO Neil Mohan is also expected to testify on the day after.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Mark Lanier, has accused Meta and Google of planting addiction in young people to gain users and profits, while Meta’s attorney has argued that the plaintiff’s suffering was due to her family context and could not be attributed to her use of Instagram or other social media.
