When Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, took the witness stand in a landmark trial against Meta Platforms, he offered a comparison that immediately drew scrutiny from child safety advocates, legal experts, and millions of concerned parents: being hooked on social media, he suggested, is not fundamentally different from being hooked on a Netflix show.

The analogy, delivered during testimony in a sweeping state attorneys general lawsuit accusing Meta of knowingly designing addictive features that harm children, has become a lightning rod in the broader debate over Big Tech’s responsibility for the mental health crisis among young people. Critics say the comparison is dangerously dismissive. Defenders argue it reflects a nuanced reality about how all digital media captures attention. Either way, the courtroom moment has crystallized the central tension of one of the most consequential technology trials in recent memory.

A Trial That Could Reshape How Tech Companies Treat Young Users

As reported by CNBC, the trial pits a coalition of state attorneys general against Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook. The states allege that Meta deliberately engineered Instagram’s features — including infinite scroll, push notifications, and algorithmically curated feeds — to maximize engagement among teenagers, even when internal research showed these features contributed to anxiety, depression, body image disorders, and sleep disruption. The lawsuit, which has been building for years, represents one of the most aggressive legal challenges ever mounted against a social media company over the welfare of minors.

Mosseri’s testimony came at a pivotal moment in the proceedings. As Instagram’s most visible leader, he was called to explain the platform’s design choices and respond to internal documents that allegedly showed Meta executives were aware of the harmful effects their products had on young users. His Netflix analogy was offered in response to questioning about whether Instagram is addictive in a clinical or uniquely dangerous sense. Mosseri argued that the compulsive pull users feel toward Instagram is comparable to the way people feel drawn to continue watching episodes of a compelling television series — an experience that is widespread and not typically characterized as a public health emergency.

The Netflix Defense: A Strategic Gambit or a Tone-Deaf Misstep?

The comparison to Netflix is not entirely without precedent in Silicon Valley’s rhetorical playbook. Technology executives have long sought to normalize the attention-capturing nature of their products by drawing parallels to older forms of media. Television, radio, comic books, and even novels have all been accused, at various points in history, of being dangerously addictive to young people. By placing Instagram in this lineage, Mosseri appeared to be making the case that concerns about social media are part of a recurring moral panic rather than evidence of a unique technological threat.

But legal experts and child psychologists have pushed back forcefully on this framing. Unlike a Netflix show, which is a passive, one-directional viewing experience, Instagram is interactive, social, and deeply personal. The platform’s algorithms learn from each user’s behavior, serving up content calibrated to maximize time spent on the app. Features like likes, comments, follower counts, and direct messages create feedback loops that are qualitatively different from watching a scripted drama. As multiple researchers have noted, the social comparison dynamics inherent in Instagram — where teenagers constantly measure themselves against curated, often unrealistic portrayals of their peers — have no real analog in traditional television consumption.

Internal Documents Paint a Damning Picture

Central to the attorneys general’s case are internal Meta documents, some of which were first revealed by whistleblower Frances Haugen in 2021, showing that the company’s own researchers found Instagram was harmful to a significant percentage of teenage users, particularly girls. One widely cited internal study found that roughly one in three teen girls said Instagram made their body image issues worse. Other documents suggested that Meta executives were briefed on these findings but chose to prioritize growth and engagement metrics over user well-being.

According to CNBC’s reporting, Mosseri acknowledged during his testimony that he was aware of some of these internal research findings but maintained that the company took steps to address the concerns raised. He pointed to features like screen time reminders, content controls for parents, and the removal of visible like counts as evidence that Instagram has been responsive to criticism. However, attorneys for the states pressed him on whether these measures were sufficient or whether they were largely cosmetic — designed more to deflect regulatory pressure than to meaningfully reduce harm.

The Broader Legal and Regulatory Reckoning

The Meta trial is unfolding against a backdrop of intensifying regulatory scrutiny of social media companies worldwide. In the United States, the Kids Online Safety Act has gained bipartisan momentum in Congress, proposing new obligations for platforms to protect minors. The European Union’s Digital Services Act has already imposed stricter transparency and accountability requirements on large online platforms. Australia recently passed legislation banning children under 16 from social media entirely, a move that has been closely watched by policymakers in other countries.

The outcome of the attorneys general’s lawsuit could have far-reaching implications. If the court finds that Meta knowingly designed addictive features targeting minors and failed to act on its own internal research, the company could face billions of dollars in penalties and be forced to fundamentally redesign how Instagram operates for young users. A ruling against Meta could also embolden similar lawsuits against other social media platforms, including TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube, all of which face their own allegations of prioritizing engagement over child safety.

Mosseri’s Credibility and Meta’s Corporate Strategy

Mosseri’s performance on the stand is being closely analyzed not just for its legal implications but for what it reveals about Meta’s broader corporate strategy. The Instagram chief has long positioned himself as the empathetic face of the platform — someone who genuinely cares about user well-being and is willing to engage with critics. His public statements have frequently acknowledged that social media can have negative effects, even as he has resisted characterizing Instagram as fundamentally harmful.

The Netflix analogy, however, risks undermining that carefully cultivated image. To parents who have watched their children struggle with anxiety, self-harm, or eating disorders that they attribute in part to social media use, the suggestion that Instagram is no more concerning than a television show may come across as dismissive or even callous. Several parent advocacy groups have already seized on the comparison, using it in public statements and social media campaigns to argue that Meta’s leadership remains out of touch with the reality of how its products affect young lives.

What the Science Actually Says About Social Media and Adolescent Mental Health

The scientific evidence on social media’s effects on young people is more nuanced than either side in the trial might prefer. Some studies have found strong correlations between heavy social media use and increased rates of depression, anxiety, and loneliness among adolescents. Jonathan Haidt’s influential 2024 book, “The Anxious Generation,” argued that the rise of smartphone-based social media was a primary driver of the youth mental health crisis that began around 2012. Other researchers, however, have cautioned that correlation does not equal causation and that the effects of social media are highly variable, depending on the individual user, the type of content consumed, and the broader social context.

What is less disputed is that platforms like Instagram are designed to be maximally engaging. Features such as variable-ratio reinforcement — where users receive unpredictable rewards in the form of likes and comments — tap into the same psychological mechanisms that make slot machines compelling. The question at the heart of the trial is whether these design choices cross a legal and ethical line when the users in question are children and teenagers whose brains are still developing.

A Defining Moment for Silicon Valley’s Relationship with Society

As the trial continues, the stakes extend well beyond Meta’s bottom line. The proceedings represent a defining test of whether the legal system can hold technology companies accountable for the downstream effects of their design decisions. For years, social media companies have operated under the broad protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liability for user-generated content. But the attorneys general’s case is built on a different theory — that Meta is liable not for the content on Instagram but for the deliberate design of features intended to maximize addictive engagement among minors.

Mosseri’s Netflix comparison may ultimately be remembered as a revealing moment in this trial — not because it was legally decisive, but because it illustrated the vast gap between how Silicon Valley executives understand their products and how millions of families experience them. For a parent whose teenager cannot put down their phone, the idea that Instagram is just another form of entertainment rings hollow. For Meta, convincing the court otherwise may be the difference between a manageable legal setback and a transformative reckoning that reshapes the company’s future and the rules governing the entire social media industry.

The trial is expected to continue for several more weeks, with additional testimony from Meta executives, outside experts, and potentially affected families. Whatever the verdict, the questions raised in this courtroom — about corporate responsibility, childhood development, and the ethics of attention engineering — are unlikely to be settled anytime soon.