Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri denied hiding low usage of a teen safety feature during a landmark Meta trial, as 29 U.S. states seek up to $200 billion in penalties for allegedly designing addictive platforms that harm youth mental health.
Instagram’s CEO, Adam Mosseri, faced intense scrutiny during a federal trial in Oakland, California, as 29 U.S. states accused Meta of deliberately designing its platforms to hook young users, leading to mental health crises. Mosseri denied allegations that the company concealed low adoption rates for a safety feature called “Take a Break,” which encourages teens to step away from the app after prolonged use. The trial, which began in July 2026, could set a precedent for how social media companies are held accountable for their impact on minors.
Instagram CEO Denies Hiding Safety Feature Data
Prosecutors, including Colorado’s Jason Slothouber, pressed Mosseri on whether the company intentionally downplayed the feature’s limited reach. Slothouber highlighted that Mosseri had publicly promoted the tool while omitting the 1.8% opt-in rate. Mosseri responded, I’ve definitely said publicly that the opt-in rates are low,
though he claimed he never specified the exact number.
Mosseri’s testimony came as part of a broader legal battle over Meta’s design practices. The states allege the company prioritized user engagement over youth well-being, violating federal and state laws. If found liable, Meta could face penalties as high as $200 billion. The company has consistently denied the allegations, with a spokesperson stating, We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts.
New Mexico Ruling Sets Precedent for Youth Safety Measures
While the federal trial unfolded, a separate case in New Mexico delivered a significant verdict. On August 7, 2026, a state court ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a teen mental health fund and implement strict safety measures, including monthly usage limits for teens and restrictions on notifications. Judge Bryan Biedscheid ruled that Meta created a public nuisance
by designing platforms that harmed children’s wellbeing, marking the first time a court forced a social media giant to make sweeping changes to its practices.
The ruling followed a $375 million jury award in an earlier phase of the case, which found Meta violated consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the safety of its platforms. Biedscheid’s decision also mandated safeguards against AI chatbots engaging minors in romantic or sexualized interactions,
a provision tied to internal documents showing Meta’s AI systems could engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual.
Meta has vowed to appeal the New Mexico ruling, arguing the measures are technologically impractical
and could force the company to exit the state.
Trial Continues as States Seek Broader Reforms
The case has drawn national attention as it tests the legal boundaries of social media accountability. Four states—California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey—allege Meta’s platforms fueled anxiety, depression, and suicide among teens, while others focus on data privacy violations.
Legal experts say the outcome could reshape social media design, with potential reforms including mandatory safety features and stricter data protection rules. As the trial progresses, the stakes remain high: a verdict could force Meta to overhaul its platforms or face massive financial penalties, while also setting a legal standard for other tech giants.
The case also underscores tensions over corporate transparency. These revelations have intensified scrutiny of Meta’s corporate culture and its prioritization of profit over user safety.
