Overview
- Adam Mosseri testified that users cannot be clinically addicted to Instagram, acknowledging only "problematic use" and saying the company makes less money from teens than older users.
- Plaintiff questioning highlighted internal debates over cosmetic "beauty" filters and other design choices, as well as Mosseri’s compensation, while a judge limited content‑safety questioning under Section 230.
- Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke told jurors platform features such as infinite scroll and tailored algorithms act like an addictive "drug," while YouTube’s lawyer argued the service is not social media or addictive.
- The Los Angeles case is a bellwether for roughly 1,500 similar suits and a test of Section 230’s reach, with a federal judge this week also clearing a parallel school‑district case in Northern California for trial by denying summary judgment.
- TikTok and Snap settled before this trial, and upcoming witnesses include Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Feb. 18 and YouTube CEO Neal Mohan the following day, as a separate New Mexico case against Meta proceeds.