Adam Mosseri, the Meta executive who oversees Instagram, acknowledged in a California court on Tuesday (Aug 25) that the company promoted new safety tools for teenagers without disclosing how few users had adopted them during early testing.The admission came in a major trial in which 29 US states have accused Meta of deliberately designing its platforms to keep children engaged while collecting their data and misleading the public about the risks. The trial, which entered its second week this week, is expected to continue through September.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/55-000-per-child-singapore-s-desperate-bid-to-persuade-people-to-have-babies-details-inside-1787640751465">$55,000 per child: Singapore's desperate bid to persuade people to have babies. Details inside</a><h2>Instagram's safety tools had low adoption</h2>State lawyers questioned Mosseri over two Instagram features designed to help teenagers manage their time on the platform: Take a Break, introduced in 2021, and Quiet Mode, launched in 2023.Internal Meta documents presented in court showed that Take a Break had an adoption rate of just 1.8 per cent, while Quiet Mode stood at 8.7 per cent.Mosseri acknowledged that the company did not publicly disclose the overall low adoption rate, which was reportedly as low as 1 to 2 per cent of accounts during the early period.He said the situation later changed after similar protections were incorporated into Teen Accounts, which Meta introduced in 2024 and which include parental controls. "This is one feature with a disappointingly low usage rate, which since this time has significantly improved," Mosseri said.<h2>Mosseri's 90 per cent claim questioned</h2>The testimony also focused on a Meta blog post written by Mosseri and published on December 7, 2021, one day before he appeared before Congress to discuss social media's impact on young people.The post said: "Early test results show that once teens set the reminders, more than 90% of them keep them on."Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-gives-trump-temporary-win-on-mail-in-voting-restrictions-1787620685760">US Supreme Court gives Trump temporary win on mail-in voting restrictions</a>Under questioning, Mosseri acknowledged that the 90 per cent figure referred only to users who had already activated the feature and continued using it. It did not indicate that 90 per cent of teenagers had adopted the tool.Mosseri could not recall whether Meta had ever disclosed the percentage of teen accounts with parental controls activated.Notably, Meta's advertising-driven business model benefits when users spend more time on its platforms.<h2>Former employees say tools were ineffective</h2>Other witnesses have also questioned whether the safety features worked as intended. Former Meta engineering director Arturo Bejar testified that Take a Break was, in his experience, "a feature that's designed to fail."George Volichenko, a former Instagram data scientist, described adoption as "very low and disappointing" and "a drop in the ocean".He told the court that Meta leadership did not approve making Quiet Mode the default for younger teenagers. He said this limited usage because the feature was difficult to find and that automatically enabling it could have had a "notable negative impact" on user engagement.Francesco Fogu, Meta's director of product design at Instagram, also testified that adoption would be lower when such features were not activated by default.<h2>Stakes could reach $200 billion</h2>The case could have major consequences for Meta. If the states prevail, they are seeking around $200 billion in penalties. A verdict against Meta could also force significant changes to how the company designs and operates its products.Mosseri is expected to continue testifying on Wednesday. Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is also expected to take the stand, although the timing of his testimony has not been disclosed.

Instagram promoted tools designed to help teenagers spend less time on the platform, but how many actually used them? Meta executive Adam Mosseri faced that question in court as states accused the company of misleading the public about its approach to teen safety.

Adam Mosseri, the Meta executive who oversees Instagram, acknowledged in a California court on Tuesday (Aug 25) that the company promoted new safety tools for teenagers without disclosing how few users had adopted them during early testing. The admission came in a major trial in which 29 US states have accused Meta of deliberately designing its platforms to keep children engaged while collecting their data and misleading the public about the risks. The trial, which entered its second week this week, is expected to continue through September. Also read | $55,000 per child: Singapore's desperate bid to persuade people to have babies. Details inside Instagram's safety tools had low adoption State lawyers questioned Mosseri over two Instagram features designed to help teenagers manage their time on the platform: Take a Break, introduced in 2021, and Quiet Mode, launched in 2023. Internal Meta documents presented in court showed that Take a Break had an adoption rate of just 1.8 per cent, while Quiet Mode stood at 8.7 per cent. Mosseri acknowledged that the company did not publicly disclose the overall low adoption rate, which was reportedly as low as 1 to 2 per cent of accounts during the early period. He said the situation later changed after similar protections were incorporated into Teen Accounts, which Meta introduced in 2024 and which include parental controls. "This is one feature with a disappointingly low usage rate, which since this time has significantly improved," Mosseri said. Mosseri's 90 per cent claim questioned The testimony also focused on a Meta blog post written by Mosseri and published on December 7, 2021, one day before he appeared before Congress to discuss social media's impact on young people. The post said: "Early test results show that once teens set the reminders, more than 90% of them keep them on." Also read | US Supreme Court gives Trump temporary win on mail-in voting restrictions Under questioning, Mosseri acknowledged that the 90 per cent figure referred only to users who had already activated the feature and continued using it. It did not indicate that 90 per cent of teenagers had adopted the tool. Mosseri could not recall whether Meta had ever disclosed the percentage of teen accounts with parental controls activated. Notably, Meta's advertising-driven business model benefits when users spend more time on its platforms. Former employees say tools were ineffective Other witnesses have also questioned whether the safety features worked as intended. Former Meta engineering director Arturo Bejar testified that Take a Break was, in his experience, "a feature that's designed to fail." George Volichenko, a former Instagram data scientist, described adoption as "very low and disappointing" and "a drop in the ocean". He told the court that Meta leadership did not approve making Quiet Mode the default for younger teenagers. He said this limited usage because the feature was difficult to find and that automatically enabling it could have had a "notable negative impact" on user engagement. Francesco Fogu, Meta's director of product design at Instagram, also testified that adoption would be lower when such features were not activated by default. Stakes could reach $200 billion The case could have major consequences for Meta. If the states prevail, they are seeking around $200 billion in penalties. A verdict against Meta could also force significant changes to how the company designs and operates its products. Mosseri is expected to continue testifying on Wednesday. Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is also expected to take the stand, although the timing of his testimony has not been disclosed.

Instagram promoted tools designed to help teenagers spend less time on the platform, but how many actually used them? Meta executive Adam Mosseri faced that question in court as states accused the company of misleading the public about its approach to teen safety.

Instagram chief admits promoting teen safety tool while hiding its low adoption

Meta is facing one of its biggest legal challenges yet as a coalition of 29 US states accuses the technology giant of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to keep children hooked, while downplaying the risks associated with its platforms. The closely watched trial began in a federal court in Oakland, California, on Tuesday (Aug 18). Four states, including California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, are leading the case, alleging that Meta’s products contributed to anxiety, depression and other mental health problems among young users.The states also accuse Meta of violating federal law by collecting and using children’s personal information improperly.Opening the case for California, deputy attorney general Megan O’Neill alleged that Meta’s business model was to “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public.”“It worked especially well for kids,” O’Neill told the eight-member jury.Meta rejected the allegations. The company’s lawyer, Paul Schmidt, acknowledged that some young people struggle with social media but argued that research does not establish a clear connection between adolescent social media use and poor wellbeing.“They don’t believe they’re going to do well if people don’t like their service,” Schmidt said, referring to Meta’s leadership.The case could have significant consequences for Facebook and Instagram. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately decide Meta’s liability, while jurors are expected to issue an advisory verdict.If Meta is found liable, the judge could impose civil penalties and order changes to the platforms. The states have proposed measures including removing likes and infinite scrolling, introducing time limits for younger users and strengthening restrictions on children under 13.Former Meta safety engineer Arturo Bejar, who has previously criticised the company’s child-safety measures, was the first witness called by the states.The trial is expected to last six weeks, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri among those expected to testify. &nbsp;

Meta faces a landmark US trial as 29 states accuse Facebook and Instagram of deliberately ‘hooking’ children, harming their wellbeing and exploiting their data for profit.

Meta is facing one of its biggest legal challenges yet as a coalition of 29 US states accuses the technology giant of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to keep children hooked, while downplaying the risks associated with its platforms. The closely watched trial began in a federal court in Oakland, California, on Tuesday (Aug 18). Four states, including California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, are leading the case, alleging that Meta’s products contributed to anxiety, depression and other mental health problems among young users. The states also accuse Meta of violating federal law by collecting and using children’s personal information improperly. Opening the case for California, deputy attorney general Megan O’Neill alleged that Meta’s business model was to “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public.” “It worked especially well for kids,” O’Neill told the eight-member jury. Meta rejected the allegations. The company’s lawyer, Paul Schmidt, acknowledged that some young people struggle with social media but argued that research does not establish a clear connection between adolescent social media use and poor wellbeing. “They don’t believe they’re going to do well if people don’t like their service,” Schmidt said, referring to Meta’s leadership. The case could have significant consequences for Facebook and Instagram. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately decide Meta’s liability, while jurors are expected to issue an advisory verdict. If Meta is found liable, the judge could impose civil penalties and order changes to the platforms. The states have proposed measures including removing likes and infinite scrolling, introducing time limits for younger users and strengthening restrictions on children under 13. Former Meta safety engineer Arturo Bejar, who has previously criticised the company’s child-safety measures, was the first witness called by the states. The trial is expected to last six weeks, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri among those expected to testify.

Meta faces a landmark US trial as 29 states accuse Facebook and Instagram of deliberately ‘hooking’ children, harming their wellbeing and exploiting their data for profit.

Did Meta ‘hook’ children to Facebook, Instagram for profit? 29 US states take tech giant to trial

A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found Meta and YouTube liable for harming a young woman because of an addictive design of their social media platforms, ordering the companies to pay $6 million in damages, including $3 million in punitive damages.The verdict hands plaintiffs in more than a thousand similar pending cases significant leverage -- and signals to the broader tech industry that juries are prepared to hold social media companies accountable for the mental health toll of their design choices.The jury answered yes to all seven questions on verdict forms for both companies, finding that Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms and that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff.Jurors also found that both companies knew or should have known their services posed a danger to minors, that they failed to adequately warn users of that danger, and that a reasonable platform operator would have done so.The panel awarded $3 million in compensatory damages, assigning Meta 70 percent of the responsibility for the plaintiff's harm -- a $2.1 million share -- and YouTube the remaining 30 percent, or $900,000.In a second phase, jurors added a further $3 million in total punitive damages after finding both companies had acted with malice, oppression or fraud.Both companies said they would appeal the verdict."This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said.A spokesperson for Meta said they "respectfully disagree with the verdict," adding that "teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app."Nine of the 12 jurors further found that both companies had acted with malice, oppression or fraud, a finding that set the stage for the separate punitive damages.The plaintiff, known in court documents by her initials K.G.M. and called Kaley at trial, began using YouTube when she was six, downloading the app on her iPod Touch to watch videos about lip gloss and an online kids game.She joined Instagram at nine, getting around a block her mother had put in place to keep her off the platform.She told jurors that her near-constant social media use "really affected my self-worth," saying the apps led her to abandon hobbies, struggle to make friends and constantly measure herself against others.In closing arguments, plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier cast the case as a story of corporate greed, saying that features like infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, notifications and like counts were engineered to drive compulsive use among young people.<h2>'Existential' threat?</h2>Meta and YouTube had maintained throughout the trial that Kaley's mental health struggles had nothing to do with their platforms.Meta's lawyer pointed to her life at home and a turbulent relationship with her parents, while YouTube disputed how much time Kaley actually spent on its platform.The jury rejected both defenses across all seven questions on each verdict form.TikTok and Snap were originally named as defendants but settled on undisclosed terms before the trial got underway.Two further bellwether trials are expected to follow in the same Los Angeles courthouse, with their outcomes likely to determine whether social media companies fight on or move toward a broader settlement, potentially including redesigning how their platforms work.The penalty amounts are "a slap on the wrist for companies like Meta and YouTube, which are two of the biggest ad sellers in the world," said Jasmine Enberg of Scalable, who tracks the social media industry."But if these companies are forced to redesign their products, that poses an existential threat to their business models."A separate New Mexico jury on Tuesday found Meta liable for endangering children by making them vulnerable to predators on its platforms and other dangers.The state had sought the maximum $2.2 billion in damages, but the jury awarded a lesser amount of $375 million.Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Jurors also found that both companies knew or should have known their services posed a danger to minors, that they failed to adequately warn users of that danger, and that a reasonable platform operator would have done so.

A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found Meta and YouTube liable for harming a young woman because of an addictive design of their social media platforms, ordering the companies to pay $6 million in damages, including $3 million in punitive damages. The verdict hands plaintiffs in more than a thousand similar pending cases significant leverage -- and signals to the broader tech industry that juries are prepared to hold social media companies accountable for the mental health toll of their design choices. The jury answered yes to all seven questions on verdict forms for both companies, finding that Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms and that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff. Jurors also found that both companies knew or should have known their services posed a danger to minors, that they failed to adequately warn users of that danger, and that a reasonable platform operator would have done so. The panel awarded $3 million in compensatory damages, assigning Meta 70 percent of the responsibility for the plaintiff's harm -- a $2.1 million share -- and YouTube the remaining 30 percent, or $900,000. In a second phase, jurors added a further $3 million in total punitive damages after finding both companies had acted with malice, oppression or fraud. Both companies said they would appeal the verdict. "This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said. A spokesperson for Meta said they "respectfully disagree with the verdict," adding that "teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app." Nine of the 12 jurors further found that both companies had acted with malice, oppression or fraud, a finding that set the stage for the separate punitive damages. The plaintiff, known in court documents by her initials K.G.M. and called Kaley at trial, began using YouTube when she was six, downloading the app on her iPod Touch to watch videos about lip gloss and an online kids game. She joined Instagram at nine, getting around a block her mother had put in place to keep her off the platform. She told jurors that her near-constant social media use "really affected my self-worth," saying the apps led her to abandon hobbies, struggle to make friends and constantly measure herself against others. In closing arguments, plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier cast the case as a story of corporate greed, saying that features like infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, notifications and like counts were engineered to drive compulsive use among young people. 'Existential' threat? Meta and YouTube had maintained throughout the trial that Kaley's mental health struggles had nothing to do with their platforms. Meta's lawyer pointed to her life at home and a turbulent relationship with her parents, while YouTube disputed how much time Kaley actually spent on its platform. The jury rejected both defenses across all seven questions on each verdict form. TikTok and Snap were originally named as defendants but settled on undisclosed terms before the trial got underway. Two further bellwether trials are expected to follow in the same Los Angeles courthouse, with their outcomes likely to determine whether social media companies fight on or move toward a broader settlement, potentially including redesigning how their platforms work. The penalty amounts are "a slap on the wrist for companies like Meta and YouTube, which are two of the biggest ad sellers in the world," said Jasmine Enberg of Scalable, who tracks the social media industry. "But if these companies are forced to redesign their products, that poses an existential threat to their business models." A separate New Mexico jury on Tuesday found Meta liable for endangering children by making them vulnerable to predators on its platforms and other dangers. The state had sought the maximum $2.2 billion in damages, but the jury awarded a lesser amount of $375 million. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Jurors also found that both companies knew or should have known their services posed a danger to minors, that they failed to adequately warn users of that danger, and that a reasonable platform operator would have done so.

Meta and YouTube found liable in social media addiction trial

meta-trial

Meta Trial, News on Meta Trial, stories on Meta Trial, articles on Meta Trial, Meta Trial stories at Wion, Meta Trial news, Meta Trial latest news

meta trial

Instagram chief admits promoting teen safety tool while hiding its low adoption

Did Meta ‘hook’ children to Facebook, Instagram? Tech giant faces US trial

Meta and YouTube found liable in social media addiction trial