Instagram’s head testified Monday that very few teens used the platform’s built-in safety tool, as Meta stands trial over allegations that it deliberately hooked young users despite clear mental health risks. The trial, brought by a coalition of state attorneys general, focuses on whether Meta’s product design and data practices violate consumer protection laws.
In testimony delivered on the second day of a landmark trial in federal court, Instagram chief Adam Mosseri acknowledged that the platform’s “Take a Break” feature — designed to nudge teens to step away after prolonged use — was activated by only a small fraction of younger users. He declined to provide exact figures, calling the adoption rate “lower than we would like.”
The admission comes as Meta faces a consolidated lawsuit from more than 40 U.S. states and territories alleging that the company knowingly engineered its social media products to be addictive, especially for teenagers, and that it misled the public about those risks.
Plaintiffs' attorneys argue that Meta’s internal research showed the harms of Instagram and Facebook on teen mental health — including anxiety, depression, and poor body image — but the company chose profit over safety. They point to leaked documents from whistleblower Frances Haugen, which revealed that Meta knew Instagram worsened body image issues for one in three teen girls.
Meta has defended itself by noting the availability of safety features, including parental controls and default private accounts for minors. But the testimony from Mosseri undercuts that defense, suggesting that even when safety tools exist, they are rarely used.
“The fact that teens aren’t using the feature doesn’t mean Meta is blameless — it means the feature is not effectively designed or promoted,” said Dr. Elena Torres, a child psychologist who has studied digital addiction. “If you build a safety rail but hide it behind three menus, it’s not a safety rail.”
Meta said in a statement that it “continues to invest in tools and policies to protect young people” and that the trial “does not reflect the full picture of our efforts.” The company has also argued that other factors, such as peer pressure and academic stress, play a larger role in teen mental health challenges.
The trial, expected to last several weeks, will hear from additional Meta executives, former employees, and teen plaintiffs. A ruling could have sweeping implications for how social media platforms design products for minors and what safety measures are deemed legally adequate.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The trial could set a precedent for holding social media companies legally liable for harms to minors, potentially forcing design changes across the industry.
- If plaintiffs prevail, Meta may face court‑ordered oversight or hefty fines, and other platforms like TikTok and Snapchat could face similar litigation.
- For parents and teens, the case highlights the gap between available safety tools and their real‑world effectiveness.
Background
Meta has faced mounting scrutiny since 2021, when whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked internal documents showing the company’s own research linked Instagram to teen mental health harms. In October 2023, a coalition of 33 states filed a federal lawsuit accusing Meta of violating the RICO Act and state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit was later consolidated with suits from other states and the District of Columbia.
The core allegation is that Meta deliberately designed Instagram and Facebook to hook young users by exploiting dopamine‑driven feedback loops — likes, comments, infinite scroll — while downplaying the risks. “Take a Break” was introduced in late 2021 after congressional hearings, but adoption metrics have never been publicly detailed until Mosseri’s testimony.
The trial is being closely watched as a bellwether for the broader debate over tech accountability, with similar cases pending against TikTok and Google.
Key Perspectives
Plaintiffs (State Attorneys General): Argue Meta’s conduct violates consumer protection laws by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices. They emphasize that Meta knowingly optimized its platforms for maximum engagement, even in ways that harm teens, while telling parents the opposite.
Meta (Defense): Contends that there is no causal link between its platforms and teen mental health crises, pointing to studies showing mixed results. It also stresses that safety features exist and that users choose how to spend their time online. Mosseri’s testimony, while acknowledging low usage, is framed as part of ongoing product improvement, not an admission of failure.
Critics and Experts: Child safety advocates argue that voluntary tools are insufficient and that platforms should be required by law to adopt “safety‑by‑design” principles — default settings that limit addictive features for minors. Skeptics also warn that a ruling against Meta could lead to overly broad regulations that stifle innovation or fail to address underlying factors like smartphones themselves.
What to Watch
- Whether other Meta executives testify about internal research that explicitly quantified harms to teens.
- The jury’s response to any internal emails or presentations suggesting Meta chose engagement over safety.
- Potential settlement talks as the trial progresses, though both sides have signaled they want a verdict.
- Policy ripple effects: state legislatures in Texas, California, and New York are already weighing bills that would impose age‑appropriate design mandates, regardless of the trial’s outcome.