Instagram chief Adam Mosseri appeared in court on August 25 as Meta faced a landmark legal challenge brought by 29 U.S. states over alleged harms associated with its social media platforms.
Mosseri defended Instagram's approach to user safety while facing questions from attorneys about the adoption of safety features designed to help teenagers manage their time and activity on the platform. The questioning focused particularly on Instagram's Take a Break and Quiet Mode tools, introduced in 2021 and 2023 respectively. Mosseri acknowledged that only a low-single-digit percentage of teenagers were using the features before Instagram later made them default settings. When questioned about whether Meta had disclosed the low adoption of the tools, Mosseri acknowledged that the company had not done so.
Editorial Insight
Key Highlights
Important points readers should notice.
The bigger issue is default safety: The testimony highlights an important design question: a safety feature may have limited real-world impact if teenagers must actively find and enable it.
Low adoption changes the debate: The acknowledgement that usage remained in the low single digits before default activation gives regulators a concrete point of discussion about whether voluntary safety tools are sufficient.
Teen Accounts shift responsibility toward platforms: Making protective features part of the default experience represents a move away from placing the entire burden of online safety on teenagers and parents.
The case could influence platform design: The outcome of the litigation may have implications beyond Meta, particularly for how technology companies design, promote and activate safety features for minors.
The company subsequently incorporated the safety measures into Teen Accounts, which were introduced in 2024 and include features such as parental controls and greater restrictions designed specifically for younger users. The testimony forms part of a major legal battle in which 29 U.S. states have accused Meta of deliberately designing Instagram and Facebook in ways that encourage young users to remain engaged with the platforms, while also alleging violations of laws concerning children's data.
Meta has rejected the allegations. The company has argued that its research does not establish a clear causal link between adolescents' use of social media and poor well-being.
The testimony has placed renewed attention on a central question facing social media companies: whether safety tools are effective when they are merely available to users, or whether platforms need to make protective features active by default for younger audiences.
Editorial Analysis
Why This Matters
The case could have wider consequences for the social media industry, particularly around the responsibility of technology companies to protect younger users. If courts or regulators conclude that platform design contributes to harmful outcomes for children and teenagers, companies could face greater pressure to introduce stronger default protections and change how their products are designed.
