Top News

SocialMediaTrial – The head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, took the witness stand in Los Angeles on Wednesday, telling jurors that he does not believe social media platforms can cause clinical addiction. His testimony came during a closely watched trial that could shape the legal responsibilities of major technology companies toward young users.

Dispute Over the Meaning of Addiction

During questioning, Mosseri said he disagrees with the characterization that people can be medically addicted to social media in the same way they might be to substances. The issue sits at the heart of the case, where plaintiffs argue that certain platform features are designed in ways that can foster compulsive use among children and teenagers.

Lawyers representing young users claim that prolonged exposure to social media has contributed to emotional and psychological harm. They are asking the court to hold companies accountable, arguing that the platforms failed to adequately safeguard minors.

Mosseri’s remarks are part of a broader defense strategy aimed at challenging the scientific and legal basis of addiction claims. The outcome of this argument could influence not only this case but also other lawsuits pending across the United States.

Major Tech Firms Remain in the Spotlight

Two of the largest technology companies, Meta Platforms and Google, remain as defendants in the trial. Google’s video-sharing service YouTube is also directly involved.

Other social media companies that were initially part of the case — TikTok and Snap — have reached settlements and are no longer participating in the courtroom proceedings.

The trial, being heard in Los Angeles, is considered one of the first major legal tests of whether social media companies can be held liable for alleged harm tied to their design and content systems. Legal experts say the proceedings are being closely watched by regulators, parents’ groups and the broader technology industry.

A Test Case With Wider Implications

At the center of the case is a 20-year-old woman identified in court documents only by the initials “KGM.” Her lawsuit is widely viewed as a bellwether — a test case intended to signal how similar claims might fare before a jury.

KGM and two other plaintiffs were selected for these early trials so both sides could evaluate how their arguments resonate in court. Thousands of related lawsuits have been filed across the country, raising comparable allegations about the impact of social media on young users.

If jurors ultimately find in favor of the plaintiffs, the decision could open the door to broader legal exposure for companies operating digital platforms. Conversely, a ruling supporting the defense could make it more difficult for similar cases to proceed.

Ongoing Debate Over Youth Safety Online

The proceedings reflect a growing national conversation about online safety and the responsibilities of technology firms. In recent years, lawmakers and advocacy groups have raised concerns about how algorithms, notifications and content recommendations may influence behavior, particularly among teenagers.

Industry representatives maintain that their services offer tools for parental controls, screen time management and user education. They argue that social media platforms provide benefits such as communication, community building and access to information.

As testimony continues, the Los Angeles trial is expected to examine internal company documents, expert research and the experiences of individual users. The verdict could help define the future legal landscape for social media companies and their obligations to younger audiences.

For now, the question of whether social media can be considered clinically addictive remains a central point of contention — one that may ultimately be decided by a jury.