Instagram chief Adam Mosseri faced intense questioning in a federal court on August 25 as Meta Platforms defended itself against allegations that its social media platforms were designed in ways that could encourage addictive use among children and teenagers. During his testimony, Mosseri acknowledged that only a small percentage of teenagers were using Instagram’s “Take a Break” safety feature before the company eventually made it the default setting for teenage users.
The testimony came during a major legal case involving Meta and 29 U.S. states. The states have accused the company of creating products that could keep young users engaged for excessive periods while failing to adequately address concerns surrounding children’s safety and privacy. The case is being closely watched because of its potential implications for how large social media companies design and operate platforms used by minors.
Mosseri, who has led Instagram since 2018, rejected the suggestion that Meta intentionally delayed making the “Take a Break” feature a default setting for teenagers. The feature had originally been introduced in 2021 and was designed to encourage young users to stop using Instagram after spending a certain amount of time on the platform.
During questioning by Jason Slothouber, an attorney representing Colorado, Mosseri acknowledged that teenage use of the feature had remained in the low single digits before Instagram changed its default settings in September 2024. His testimony placed particular attention on the gap between the availability of a safety tool and the number of teenagers who actually used it.
Mosseri had previously written about the feature when it was introduced in December 2021. At that time, he estimated that early testing had shown more than 90% of teenage users who activated “Take a Break” continued to keep the feature enabled. However, that high retention rate applied to teenagers who had already chosen to activate the tool and did not represent teenage users across Instagram as a whole.
Asked about the relatively low adoption of the feature, Mosseri said, “Most teens didn’t want it. We decided to push forward with it anyway.”
The exchange highlights one of the central issues in the case: whether providing safety controls is sufficient when young users are unlikely to activate those controls themselves. Social media platforms commonly give users tools designed to manage screen time, notifications and other aspects of digital use. However, the effectiveness of such measures can depend heavily on whether users understand them, choose to activate them and continue using them.
The states involved in the case argue that Meta’s approach went further than simply providing optional tools. They contend that the company deliberately designed Instagram and Facebook to encourage prolonged engagement among young users. According to the allegations, features intended to maximize engagement could contribute to harmful patterns of use, particularly among children and teenagers who may be more vulnerable to the effects of social media.
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey have specifically accused Meta of designing its platforms in ways that could encourage young people to remain hooked. Their allegations include claims that excessive social media use has contributed to serious mental health concerns, including anxiety, depression and suicide. Meta has strongly rejected the broader allegation that it designed its services to addict children.
The legal dispute also involves children’s privacy. All 29 states have alleged that Meta improperly collected and used personal information belonging to children under the age of 13 who used its platforms. The states have indicated that they could seek civil penalties approaching $200 billion if Meta is found liable for the alleged violations.
Meta has disputed the accusations and has argued that its own research does not establish a clear connection between adolescent social media use and poor overall well-being. The company has also challenged the suggestion that its business strategy was based on deliberately creating addictive experiences for children.
Mosseri’s testimony also focused on how safety research was handled inside Instagram and Meta. Under questioning, he rejected the suggestion that he was aware of a company practice in which lawyers reviewed internal presentations in order to remove unfavorable information or prevent executives from seeing concerns about children’s safety.
Mosseri said he wanted information concerning the safety of young users to be accurate and supported by appropriate research and experts. He also denied encouraging employees to limit the information brought to him.
“I am not trying to encourage my team to hide anything,” Mosseri said. “I want to understand how things work. I can’t think of any time that I’ve encouraged people to bring less information to me.”
His comments were significant because the trial is examining not only the features available to young users but also the way Meta internally handled research and concerns related to those users. Questions about corporate knowledge and decision-making have become an important part of the broader debate over whether social media companies adequately respond when internal research identifies potential risks.
Mosseri also described changes made inside Instagram after the 2021 disclosure of internal Meta documents that became known as the Facebook Files. The documents were brought to public attention by Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager and whistleblower who argued that Meta had information indicating that some of its products could pose risks to children but had not done enough to address those concerns.
Following the leak, Mosseri said Instagram centralized employees working on sensitive research involving teenagers into a single team. Access to some of the information was also reduced across the company. The changes have become relevant to the states’ examination of how Meta managed information about young users and whether executives had adequate access to research concerning potential safety problems.
For Meta, the case represents a significant challenge because the court could potentially address both financial penalties and changes to the way Facebook and Instagram operate. The states have indicated that the possible financial consequences could be enormous, while the court could also consider whether additional measures are needed to protect children using the platforms.
