Adam Mosseri told a California court that spending 16 hours a day on Instagram may be “problematic use,” but argued it should not be classified as a clinical addiction.
On the witness stand in a high-profile California trial, Adam Mosseri, the leader of Instagram, was asked about a shocking example presented by the plaintiff: a young person who once spent roughly 16 hours a day on the app. Mosseri said that such extreme use “sounds like problematic use,” but he pushed back on calling it a clinical addiction, arguing that clinicians, not company executives, should make that diagnosis.
What is the trial about?
The courtroom battle is part of a wider legal fight in which a plaintiff known as “KGM” alleges that several major platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive to children and teens, and that this design contributed to serious mental-health harm. The case targets major companies including Meta (parent of Instagram) and Google’s YouTube, and could set precedent for hundreds, possibly thousands, of related suits. The opening arguments and early testimony have focused on internal documents, product designs (like auto-scrolling and recommendation algorithms), and whether companies prioritized engagement over young users’ wellbeing.
What did Mosseri say?
When pressed about extreme usage, for example, a user spending a whole day on the app, Mosseri drew a line between two concepts: “clinical addiction” and “problematic use.” He said clinicians diagnose addiction and that he prefers the term “problematic use” to describe behavior that harms a person’s life (for instance, causing sleep loss, school or work problems, or worsening mental health). He compared heavy social-media use to binge-watching a TV series: it can be excessive and harmful, but that does not necessarily make it the same as a medical addiction.
Is “social-media addiction” a recognized clinical diagnosis?
Short answer: not formally. Major diagnostic manuals do not yet list “social-media addiction” as an officially recognized disorder. The World Health Organization does recognize gaming disorder in ICD-11, but not a social-media disorder; researchers and clinicians instead often use terms like problematic social media use or social media use disorder when studying harms and patterns. That does not mean the harms are not real: peer-reviewed studies link excessive social-media use to sleep problems, anxiety, depression and disordered eating in some young people, but researchers also warn that cause and effect are hard to prove and that individual vulnerability and context matter.
Why Calling It “Problematic Use” Instead of “Addiction” Matters
Mosseri’s choice of words matters for three reasons:
Legal posture: In court, calling something a “clinical addiction” implies a medical cause that could strengthen claims the platform created a pathological condition. By emphasizing “problematic use,” company witnesses aim to narrow the legal question away from a medical diagnosis and toward responsibility for user behavior.
Public perception: For families and clinicians, “addiction” suggests a need for treatment. For companies, it suggests liability. The difference shapes how policymakers, parents and teens think about regulation and remedies.
Scientific accuracy: Researchers want precise language. Most public-health organizations say that while excessive or compulsive social-media use can mirror addiction-like symptoms (withdrawal, loss of control, priority given to use over other activities), more work is needed to standardize definitions and diagnostic criteria.
What experts say about “problematic use”
Public-health bodies, including parts of the WHO and professional psychology groups, advise treating heavy social-media use as a potential risk factor rather than an established disease in itself. They recommend screening for related harms (sleep disruption, mood problems, declines in school or work performance) and addressing underlying issues such as loneliness, bullying, or pre-existing mental-health conditions. In short, whether you call it “problematic use” or “addiction,” the priority for clinicians and families is the same: identify harm and intervene.
What this case could change
Legal scholars and advocates are watching closely. A verdict that finds companies liable for designing addictive features could prompt changes across the industry, from algorithm design and age-verification to regulatory limits on features aimed at children. Conversely, a finding for the defendants might reinforce the stance that social behavior and family context, not product design, are the decisive factors. Either way, the trial has already intensified public debate and spurred lawmakers to consider stronger safety rules for young users.
Why This Case Matters Beyond the Courtroom
- Spending 16 hours on a social app in a single day is almost certainly harmful to a person’s wellbeing; experts call that problematic use, even if it is not currently labelled a clinical diagnosis.
- The distinction between “problematic use” and “clinical addiction” is meaningful in court and in medicine, but it does not change the fact that heavy use can cause real harm.
- Families and clinicians should focus on signs of harm (sleep loss, mood changes, withdrawal from activities) and on practical steps: screen time limits, app settings for teens, parental involvement, and professional help if mental health declines.
