Paid Complicity
The discovery that paid advertisements on Instagram allegedly promoted access to child sexual abuse material is not simply a moderation failure.
It was not a product launch. It was not a flashy tech conference. There were no applause breaks, no influencer selfies, no trending hashtags. Instead, Instagram chief Adam Mosseri sat in a Los Angeles courtroom, under oath, answering questions that could shape the future of social media.
And the biggest word in the room? Addiction.
Advertisement
But Mosseri does not like that word.
Advertisement
“Addiction” or just “too much”?
On Wednesday, during testimony in a high-profile California trial, Adam Mosseri made one thing very clear: he does not believe Instagram is clinically addictive.
“I’m sure I said this,” he told the court, “but I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use.”
He repeated several times that he is not a medical professional. And he stressed that there is a difference between saying you are “addicted” to something in a casual way and being medically addicted.
To explain his point, he gave a relatable example. He said he may have once described himself as being “addicted” to a Netflix show. But that does not mean he had a clinical addiction.
“So it’s a personal thing,” Mosseri said. “Yeah, I do think it’s possible to use Instagram more than you feel good about. Too much is relative. It’s personal.”
That statement may sound simple. But inside that courtroom, it carried huge weight.
Because this trial is not about casual scrolling. It is about mental health, teenagers, and whether social media companies knowingly built products that could harm young people.
The girl known as ‘KGM’
At the center of this Los Angeles trial is a 20-year-old woman identified only by her initials: KGM.
She and her mother allege that Instagram’s design especially features like infinite scroll led to addictive behaviour. According to the lawsuit, this behaviour worsened her depression and suicidal thoughts.
The question for the jury is straightforward but serious: was Instagram a substantial factor in her mental health struggles?
A Meta spokesperson pushed back. “The evidence will show she faced many significant, difficult challenges well before she ever used social media,” the spokesperson said.
This case is one of several “bellwether” trials. That means it is a test case. The outcome could influence hundreds of similar lawsuits filed by families and school districts against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap.
Originally, TikTok and Snap were part of this case. But they settled with one of the plaintiffs and are no longer involved in this specific trial.
Still, the bigger legal storm is far from over.
The bigger legal wave against big tech
Across the United States, hundreds of families are suing major tech companies. They claim these platforms knowingly created addictive products that damaged children’s mental health.
Mosseri is the first major executive to take the stand in this series of trials.
Psychologists do not officially classify social media addiction as a medical diagnosis. But researchers have documented harmful consequences from compulsive use especially among young people.
Lawmakers worldwide are also raising alarms about the addictive potential of these platforms.
Mark Lanier, the lawyer representing the plaintiff in the LA case, asked Mosseri whether Instagram sometimes puts profit before safety. He questioned whether design features were intentionally built to keep users hooked.
Lanier also referred to social media apps as “digital casinos” because of features like endless scrolling.
Mosseri disagreed with the addiction label. But he did acknowledge something important: problematic usage can exist.
“I think it depends on the person,” he said when asked whether problematic usage of Instagram is real.
Profit vs protection
One of the most intense moments in court came when Lanier pressed Mosseri about his role as a decision-maker.
Does he prioritise profit? Or does he prioritise testing and safety first especially when minors are involved?
“In general, we should be focused on the protection of minors,” he said. “But I believe protecting minors over the long run is good for business and for profit.”
Still, some families watching the trial were not convinced.
Matthew P Bergman, founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center, said in a statement:
“Adam Mosseri’s testimony under oath today revealed what families have long suspected: Instagram’s executives made a conscious decision to put growth over the safety of minors.”
That is a serious accusation. And it did not stop there.
The plastic surgery filter controversy
One of the most explosive parts of the trial involved digital filters specifically filters that could make users look like they had plastic surgery.
Mark Lanier introduced a November 2019 email exchange between Meta executives. The subject? Whether to ban these face-altering filters.
In the emails, executives debated concerns from health experts and the press. One subheading even included the phrase: “PR fire on plastic surgery.”
Meta’s tech chief Andrew Bosworth wrote that he had informed CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the issue. According to the email, Zuckerberg was concerned about whether there was solid data proving real harm.
“He is concerned about whether we have good enough data that this represents real harm,” Bosworth wrote.
Another executive, John Hegeman, warned that a blanket ban on filters that could not be replicated with makeup might hurt competitiveness in Asian markets, including India.
Also Read: 2016 trend on Instagram: Detailed look at why 2016’s pop culture, memes, music are going viral again in 2026
“A blanket ban… is going to limit our ability to be competitive in Asian markets (including India),” he wrote.
Hegeman suggested building a “nuanced framework” instead of banning everything outright.
Mosseri testified that he interpreted Hegeman’s comment as being about cultural relevance, not money.
He said Meta does not earn revenue from filters. Instead the company wants to remain culturally relevant so users can enjoy the platform.
“We want to help people express themselves,” Mosseri said. “But when it comes to revenue, that’s based on how many ads people see on Instagram.”
He added that he had not seen data showing that filters increase ad consumption.
“It’s not a revenue decision,” he said.
Three options, one risky choice
Another email exchange presented in court showed Mosseri being asked to choose between three options before going to Zuckerberg for a final decision on the plastic surgery filters.
Here were the options:
Option 1: Temporary ban under current policy, re-evaluate later with more data.
Pros: Reduced well-being concerns, no PR or regulatory risks.
Cons: Limited growth.
Option 2: Lift the ban but stop recommending the filters.
Cons: Still a notable risk to well-being.
Option 3: Lift the ban entirely.
Pros: Lowest impact to growth.
Cons: Highest risk to well-being and bad media attention.
Mosseri said he preferred Option 2.
Margaret Stewart, vice president of product design and responsible innovation, replied to him: “I respect your call on this and I’ll support it, but… I don’t think it’s the right call given the risks.”
She supported banning the filters.
Mosseri told the court that the company ultimately implemented a more “focused ban” involving a subset of digital filters.
Internal warnings: “IG is a drug”
The plaintiffs’ lawyer also brought up internal conversations among Meta researchers.
In one internal message, an employee reportedly wrote: “IG is a drug.”
Another responded: “LOL, I mean, all social media. We’re basically pushers.”
One of them added: “I know Adam doesn’t want to hear it… He freaked out when I talked about dopamine… but it is undeniable. It is biological. It is psychological.”
Mosseri has previously faced scrutiny over whether he dismissed internal warnings about addictive design.
In court, he maintained that Instagram tests features before releasing them to younger users.
“We are trying to be as safe as possible but also censor as little as possible,” he said.
Parents in the courtroom
Some parents who believe their children were harmed, and in some cases died, because of social media were present in court.
One of them is John DeMay.
His son, Jordan, was 17 when he died by suicide in 2022. Hours before his death, Jordan was targeted in an online sextortion scam. Two Nigerian brothers used a hacked Instagram account to pretend they were a girl. After Jordan sent nude photos, they blackmailed him for $1,000 and threatened to send the images to his friends and family.
DeMay spoke before Mosseri testified.
“It’s absolutely a win for us already because the testimony is public, the internal documents are public,” he said. “Now Mr. Mosseri is going to have to go on the stand and try to justify why his company was doing the things they were doing… even though kids are dying over them.”
DeMay said he has more hope in the courts than in lawmakers.
“Every time we try to get something legislatively done it’s a grind,” he said. “I’ve lost a lot of hope.”
He believes financial pressure could force change.
“When they start getting sued for hundreds of millions of dollars… they’re going to be forced to make changes or else they’re going to go broke.”
Bypassing a powerful law
Interestingly, the plaintiffs are not focusing on harmful content posted by users. Instead, they are targeting the design of the platforms themselves.
That strategy is important.
There is a federal law that usually protects tech platforms from being sued over third-party content. By focusing on product design, features like infinite scroll, the plaintiffs are attempting to bypass that legal shield.
Are safety tools really working?
Instagram has added new safety features in recent years, especially for younger users.
But a 2025 review by Fairplay, a nonprofit group advocating to reduce big tech’s influence on children, found troubling results.
According to the review, fewer than one in five safety tools were fully functional. About 64% were either substantially ineffective or no longer existed.
This trial is just the beginning.
It is one of multiple cases questioning what tech companies knew about the potential dangers of their platforms, and when they knew it. For now, the man who runs Instagram says the line between addiction and problematic use matters.
Advertisement
