\n<\/p>\n
LOS ANGELES — <\/span>LOS ANGELES (AP) \u2014 Adam Mosseri<\/a>, the head of Meta’s Instagram, testified Wednesday during a landmark social media trial in Los Angeles that he disagrees with the idea that people can be clinically addicted to social media platforms. <\/p>\n The question of addiction is a key pillar of the case, where plaintiffs seek to hold social media companies responsible for harms to children who use their platforms. Meta Platforms and Google’s YouTube are the two remaining defendants in the case, which TikTok and Snap have settled.<\/a><\/p>\n At the core of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old identified only by the initials \u201cKGM,\u201d whose lawsuit could determine how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies would play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials \u2014 essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury.<\/p>\n Mosseri said it\u2019s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and what he called problematic use. The plaintiff’s lawyer, however, presented quotes directly from Mosseri in a podcast interview a few years ago where he said the opposite, but he clarified that he was probably using the term “too casually,\u201d as people tend to do. <\/p>\n Mosseri said he was not claiming to be a medical expert when questioned about his qualifications to comment on the legitimacy of social media addiction, but said someone \u201cvery close\u201d to him has experienced serious clinical addiction, which is why he said he was \u201cbeing careful with my words.\u201d<\/p>\n He said he and his colleagues use the term \u201cproblematic use\u201d to refer to \u201csomeone spending more time on Instagram than they feel good about, and that definitely happens.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s \u201cnot good for the company, over the long run, to make decisions that profit for us but are poor for people\u2019s wellbeing,” Mosseri said. <\/p>\n Mosseri and the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mark Lanier, engaged in a lengthy back-and-forth about cosmetic filters on Instagram that changed people\u2019s appearance in a way that seemed to promote plastic surgery.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are trying to be as safe as possible but also censor as little as possible,” Mosseri said. <\/p>\n In the courtroom, bereaved parents of children who have had social media struggles seemed visibly upset during a discussion around body dysmorphia and cosmetic filters. Meta shut down all third-party augmented reality filters<\/a> in January 2025. The judge made an announcement to members of the public on Wednesday after the displays of emotion, reminding them not to make any indication of agreement or disagreement with testimony, saying that it would be “improper to indicate some position.\u201d<\/p>\n In recent years, Instagram has added a slew of features<\/a> and tools it says have made the platform safer for young people. But this does not always work. A report last year<\/a>, for instance, found that teen accounts researchers created were recommended age-inappropriate sexual content, including \u201cgraphic sexual descriptions, the use of cartoons to describe demeaning sexual acts, and brief displays of nudity.”<\/p>\n In addition, Instagram also recommended a \u201crange of self-harm, self-injury, and body image content\u201d on teen accounts that the report says \u201cwould be reasonably likely to result in adverse impacts for young people, including teenagers experiencing poor mental health, or self-harm and suicidal ideation and behaviors.\u201d Meta called the report \u201cmisleading, dangerously speculative\u201d and said it misrepresents its efforts on teen safety.<\/p>\n Meta is also facing a separate trial in New Mexico<\/a> that began this week. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n