Instagram Chief Adam Mosseri Denies Knowledge of Efforts to Hide Teen Safety Data
Court testimony reveals a Meta lawyer instructed staff to limit the Instagram head's exposure to critical safety metrics during a 2023 presentation.
Instagram head Adam Mosseri testified this week in a high-profile trial brought by dozens of state attorneys general regarding social media addiction and teen safety. The proceedings center on whether Meta intentionally designed its platforms to be addictive to children despite internal research indicating potential harm.
During the trial, internal messages revealed that a company lawyer instructed employees to limit Mosseri's exposure to specific teen safety data in a 2023 presentation. Mosseri testified that he was unaware of this restriction and denied encouraging his team to hide information. "I'm not a legal expert, so I'm not sure what the reasons might be for removing information from presentations before they get to me," Mosseri stated, adding that he was not trying to encourage his team to hide anything.
Internal Data on Teen Risks
The trial has brought several alarming internal metrics to light. A 2023 internal slide deck revealed that content related to suicide, self-injury, and eating disorders had a teen audience 2.5 times larger than that of adults. Furthermore, content that Meta had deemed "non-recommendable" to teens was actually viewed by teenagers at a rate 1.5 times higher than by adults.
Testimony also challenged the efficacy of Meta's safety tools. Former data scientist George Volichenko testified that the "take a break" feature—designed to encourage users to step away from the app—saw very low adoption among the youth demographic. Volichenko cited early findings showing adoption rates between only 0.165% and 0.2% among teens.
The Legal Stakes
This testimony highlights a potential disconnect between Meta's executive leadership and the safety data produced by its own designers. The core of the states' argument is that there is a significant gap between Meta's public claims regarding safety and the reality of its internal data. If the court finds that executives were systematically shielded from critical safety risks by legal counsel, it could strengthen the argument that Meta acted with negligence or an intent to deceive the public and regulators.
What's Next
The legal ramifications for Meta could be historic, as state attorneys general are seeking penalties as high as $1.4 trillion. The court will now weigh the testimony of executives like Mosseri against the internal documents and the testimony of former employees like Volichenko. Observers are watching to see if the judge views the shielding of data as a corporate strategy to maintain plausible deniability for top leadership.