Instagram chief Adam Mosseri said Wednesday during testimony in a high-profile social media trial that he thinks there can be problematic usage of social media, but does not think it constitutes an addiction.

“I’m sure I said this, but I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” said Mosseri, who noted several times that he is not a medical professional.

Mosseri said that sometimes the use of the word addiction can refer to something more casually, and  noted that while he may have once said he was addicted to a Netflix show, that’s not an actual clinical addiction.

“So it’s a personal thing, but yeah, I do think it’s possible to use Instagram more than you feel good about,” Mosseri said. “Too much is relative, it’s personal.”

Mosseri testified in Los Angeles Superior Court, where the plaintiff alleges that social media platforms Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap misled the public about the safety of their apps while knowing certain design choices and features fostered detrimental mental health effects in young users.

Although TikTok and Snap were originally part of the case, the two companies are no longer involved after settling with a plaintiff involved in the lawsuit.

“The question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles,” a Meta spokesperson said.

The LA trial centers around a plaintiff listed as “KGM” and her mother, who allege that the tech companies designed features like infinite scroll that resulted in addictive behavior and negative mental health issues.

“The evidence will show she faced many significant, difficult challenges well before she ever used social media,” the Meta spokesperson said in a statement.

Mark Lanier, the plaintiff’s lawyer, questioned Mosseri about social media addiction and about certain choices that company executives made that resulted in alleged negative harm.

When Lanier asked Mosseri whether there’s such a thing as problematic usage of Instagram, Mosseri replied, “I think it depends on the person.”

Lanier pressed Mosseri about his role as a “decision maker” for Instagram, and if he leans toward making decisions that lead to profit before testing, or if he emphasizes testing products first to protect children.

“In general, we should be focused on the protection of minors, but I believe protecting minors over the long run is good for business and for profit,” Mosseri said.

The trial, which had opening statements Monday, is one of multiple legal cases this year that center on the safety of social media platforms and what the companies knew about potential dangers to children.

Lanier introduced an exhibit detailing a November 2019 email exchange between company executives debating whether to ban digital filters that can alter photos of people’s faces to appear as if they had plastic surgery.

Mosseri said that the company ultimately decided to not allow any digital effects that would encourage plastic surgery after debating what could be permissible given the advanced capabilities of modern-day makeup.

In the email chain, in which one subhead included the phrase “PR fire on plastic surgery,” Meta executives discussed concerns from the press and health experts on whether the digital filtering effects could lead to detrimental mental health issues.

Meta tech chief Andrew Bosworth said in the email chain that he notified CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the plastic surgery digital filter, and that the Facebook co-founder “might want to review before implementing.”

“He is concerned about whether we have good enough data that this represents real harm,” Bosworth said of Zuckerberg’s view on the project.

Former Meta executive John Hegeman said in another email related to the chain that “a blanket ban on things that can’t be done with make-up is going to limit our ability to be competitive in Asian markets (including India).”

“I’d much rather see us develop a nuanced framework for responsible use that still allows us to build the products that people clearly want and intentionally seek out,” Hegeman wrote in the email.

Mosseri said Wednesday that while he interpreted Hegeman’s comments to mean that a blanket ban of the proposed filters would hurt the company’s ability to compete in Asian markets, he didn’t think that the former Meta executive was talking about money, but rather cultural relevance.

He said that Meta doesn’t make money from its filters and instead wants to be culturally relevant so people can enjoy the platform.

Lanier then presented an email exchange between Mosseri and Meta policy executive Andy O’Connell in which the Instagram head was asked to pick one of three options before going to Zuckerberg for his executive decision on the filters.

The first option included a temporary ban on plastic surgery filters under the current policy, and then a re-evaluation when there is more definitive data on wellbeing. The option listed “pros” of mitigating well-being concerns and leading to no PR or regulatory risks, but it had the “cons” of limiting growth.

The second option would lift the ban on the plastic surgery filters while removing the effects from being recommended to Instagram users. The “cons” of that option included a still notable risk to well-being.

The third option was a lift on the ban, which would have the lowest impact to growth but the highest risk to well-being and the possibility of generating bad media attention.

Mosseri replied to the email that he preferred option 2, which Lanier noted was the choice that involved a notable risk to well-being.

“I respect your call on this and I’ll support it, but want it to just say for the record that i don’t think its the right call given the risks,” wrote Margaret Stewart, the vice president of product design and responsible innovation at Facebook, in a reply to Mosseri. Stewart supported banning the filters.

Mosseri told the courtroom repeatedly that the company ended up with a more “focused ban” that involved a subset of digital filters.

During cross-examination, Mosseri further explained that digital filters are for a minority of users who want to make posts more fun and entertaining, but that the company doesn’t make any money from the technology.

“We want to help people express themselves. But when it comes to revenue, that’s based on how many ads people see on Instagram,” Mosseri said. “I haven’t seen any data that suggests using filters drives content consumption or ads. It’s not a revenue decision.”

WATCH: New Mexico AG Raul Torrez on Meta trial.

Meta Platforms is set to test new subscription models across its apps, including Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp in the coming months, according to a report from TechCrunch on Tuesday. 

The report, confirmed by a Meta spokesperson, said the subscriptions are expected to “unlock more productivity and creativity” by giving paid users access to more features and expanded AI capabilities. 

Meta’s recently acquired suite of general AI agents under Manus will also be scaled as part of the subscription plans. Meta Platforms bought Manus — a Singapore-based developer of AI agents founded in China — in December for a reported $2 billion.

With its new subscription plans, Meta could be seeking a return on investment from its massive spending on AI talent and acquisitions last year, even before the Manus purchase. 

While Meta has been developing large language models under the Llama umbrella, those have been open-sourced. That means general access to Llama has remained free, unlike with paid plans from AI leaders like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic.

Other features offered as part of Meta’s paid plans could include full access to its AI-powered short-form video experience Vibes, which allows users to create and remix AI-generated videos. 

While Vibes has been free since its launch in 2025, the new subscription model would grant free access to its basic version, with the option to pay for additional features. 

The subscriptions will be separate from Meta Verified, a paid product rolled out by the company in 2023 that gave content creators and businesses a verified badge, 24/7 direct support, protection against impersonation, search optimization, and more.

Meta told TechCrunch that it plans to listen to its user community and gather feedback as it rolls out subscriptions in the coming months.

Australia on Wednesday became the first country to formally bar users under the age of 16 from accessing major social media platforms, a move expected to be closely monitored by global tech companies and policymakers around the world.

Canberra’s ban, which came into effect from midnight local time, targets 10 major services, including Alphabet‘s YouTube, Meta’s Instagram, ByteDance’s TikTok, Reddit, Snapchat and Elon Musk’s X.

The controversial rule requires these platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent underage access, using age–verification methods such as inference from online activity, facial estimation via selfies, uploaded IDs, or linked bank details.

All targeted platforms had agreed to comply with the policy to some extent. Elon Musk’s X had been one of the last holdouts, but signaled on Wednesday that it would comply. 

The policy means millions of Australian children are expected to have lost access to their social accounts. 

However, the impact of the policy could be even wider, as it will set a benchmark for other governments considering teen social media bans, including Denmark, Norway, France, Spain, Malaysia and New Zealand. 

Ahead of the legislation’s passage last year, a YouGov survey found that 77% of Australians backed the under-16 social media ban. Still, the rollout has faced some resistance since becoming law.

Supporters of the bill have argued it safeguards children from social media-linked harms, including cyberbullying, mental health issues, and exposure to predators and pornography. 

Among those welcoming the official ban on Wednesday was Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and author of The Anxious Generation, a 2024 best-selling book that linked a growing mental health crisis to smartphone and social media usage, especially for the young.

In a post on social media platform X, Haidt commended policymakers in Australia for “freeing kids under 16 from the social media trap.”

“There will surely be difficulties in the early months, but the world is rooting for your success, and many other nations will follow,” he added. 

On the other hand, opponents contend that the ban infringes on freedoms of expression and access to information, raises privacy concerns through invasive age verification, and represents excessive government intervention that undermines parental responsibility.

Those critics include groups like Amnesty Tech, which said in a statement Tuesday that the ban was an ineffective fix that ignored the rights and realities of younger generations.

“The most effective way to protect children and young people online is by protecting all social media users through better regulation, stronger data protection laws and better platform design,” said Amnesty Tech Programme Director Damini Satija.

Meanwhile, David Inserra, a fellow for free expression and technology at the Cato Institute, warned in a blog post that children would evade the new policy by shifting to new platforms, private apps like Telegram, or VPNs, driving them to “more isolated communities and platforms with fewer protections” where monitoring is harder.

Tech companies like Google have also warned that the policy could be extremely difficult to enforce, while government-commissioned reports have pointed to inaccuracies in age–verification technology, such as selfie-based age–guessing software. 

Indeed, on Wednesday, local reports in Australia indicated that many children had already bypassed the ban, with age-assurance tools misclassifying users, and workarounds such as VPNs proving effective.

However, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had attempted to preempt these issues, acknowledging in an opinion piece on Sunday that the system would not work flawlessly from the start, likening it to liquor laws.

“The fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn’t diminish the value of having a clear national standard,” he added.

Experts told CNBC that the rollout is expected to continue to face challenges and that regulators would need to take a trial-and-error approach. 

“There’s a fair amount of teething problems around it. Many young people have been posting on TikTok that they successfully evaded the age limitations and that’s to be expected,” said Terry Flew, a professor of digital communication and culture at the University of Sydney. 

“You were never going to get 100% disappearance of every person under the age of 16 from every one of the designated platforms on day one,” he added.

TikTok’s grip on the short-form video market is tightening, and the world’s biggest tech platforms are racing to catch up.

Since launching globally in 2016, ByteDance-owned TikTok has amassed over 1.12 billion monthly active users worldwide, according to Backlinko. American users spend an average of 108 minutes per day on the app, according to Apptoptia.

TikTok’s success has reshaped the social media landscape, forcing competitors like Meta and Google to pivot their strategies around short-form video. But so far, experts say that none have matched TikTok’s algorithmic precision.

“It is the center of the internet for young people,” said Jasmine Enberg, vice president and principal analyst at Emarketer. “It’s where they go for entertainment, news, trends, even shopping. TikTok sets the tone for everyone else.”

Platforms like Meta‘s Instagram Reels and Google’s YouTube Shorts have expanded aggressively, launching new features, creator tools and even considering separate apps just to compete. Microsoft-owned LinkedIn, traditionally a professional networking site, is the latest to experiment with TikTok-style feeds. But with TikTok continuing to evolve, adding features like e-commerce integrations and longer videos, the question remains whether rivals can keep up.

“I’m scrolling every single day. I doom scroll all the time,” said TikTok content creator Alyssa McKay.

But there may a dark side to this growth.

As short-form content consumption soars, experts warn about shrinking attention spans and rising mental-health concerns, particularly among younger users. Researchers like Dr. Yann Poncin, associate professor at the Child Study Center at Yale University, point to disrupted sleep patterns and increased anxiety levels tied to endless scrolling habits.

“Infinite scrolling and short-form video are designed to capture your attention in short bursts,” Dr. Poncin said. “In the past, entertainment was about taking you on a journey through a show or story. Now, it’s about locking you in for just a few seconds, just enough to feed you the next thing the algorithm knows you’ll like.”

Despite sky-high engagement, monetizing short videos remains an uphill battle. Unlike long-form YouTube content, where ads can be inserted throughout, short clips offer limited space for advertisers. Creators, too, are feeling the squeeze.

“It’s never been easier to go viral,” said Enberg. “But it’s never been harder to turn that virality into a sustainable business.”

Last year, TikTok generated an estimated $23.6 billion in ad revenues, according to Oberlo, but even with this growth, many creators still make just a few dollars per million views. YouTube Shorts pays roughly four cents per 1,000 views, which is less than its long-form counterpart. Meanwhile, Instagram has leaned into brand partnerships and emerging tools like “Trial Reels,” which allow creators to experiment with content by initially sharing videos only with non-followers, giving them a low-risk way to test new formats or ideas before deciding whether to share with their full audience. But Meta told CNBC that monetizing Reels remains a work in progress.

While lawmakers scrutinize TikTok’s Chinese ownership and explore potential bans, competitors see a window of opportunity. Meta and YouTube are poised to capture up to 50% of reallocated ad dollars if TikTok faces restrictions in the U.S., according to eMarketer.

Watch the video to understand how TikTok’s rise sparked a short form video race.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg considered spinning out Instagram in 2018 on concerns about the rising threat of antitrust litigation against Facebook, according to an email presented Tuesday in a Washington, D.C. courtroom.

During Zuckerberg’s second day of testimony in Meta’s antitrust trial with the Federal Trade Commission, lawyers representing the FTC presented an email from May 2018, in which Zuckerberg appeared to comment on the possibility of separating the photo-sharing app his company purchased in 2012 for $1 billion. In 2012, Instagram had fewer than 10 employees while Facebook, prior to its corporate rebranding to Meta, was approaching its initial public offering.

“And i’m beginning to wonder whether spinning Instagram out is the the only structure that will accomplish a number of important goals,” Zuckerberg wrote in the email. “As calls to break up the big tech companies grow, there is a non-trivial chance that we will be forced to spin out Instagram and perhaps WhatsApp in the next 5-10 years anyway. This is one more factor we should consider.”

Meta’s acquisition of Instagram and its ensuing 2014 purchase of WhatsApp for $19 billion are at the heart of the blockbuster antitrust trial that kicked off Monday and could last weeks.

The FTC alleges that Meta monopolizes the personal social networking market, and believes that the company should never have been able to acquire the photo-sharing and messaging apps. The commission is seeking to cleave those apps from Meta as a possible remedy.

Meta disputes the FTC’s allegations and claims the commission mischaracterizes the competitive landscape and fails to acknowledge a number of rivals like TikTok and Apple’s iMessage.

WATCH: Mark Zuckerberg takes witness stand on first day of antitrust trial.

Former U.S. Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan said Monday that Facebook “panicked” when making the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp as smartphone use took off.

“It saw companies like Instagram and WhatsApp experiencing astronomical growth, and that’s the point at which it resorted to this buy-or-bury scheme where, if it couldn’t outcompete a rival, it either bought them out or cut them off its network,” Khan said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, begins a trial with the FTC on Monday. The government alleges that the company monopolized the personal social networking market with its $1 billion acquisition of Instagram in 2012 and $19 billion purchase of WhatsApp in 2014.

Meta did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

The trial could result in the social media giant divesting the two companies. Meta has filed a pretrial brief detailing its disagreement with the FTC and reiterating that it believes the company does not have a monopoly.

“There’s no expiration date when it comes to the illegality of the transaction,” Khan said. “I think there is a way in which the entire social networking ecosystem looks different today because Facebook was permitted to go out and make these acquisitions.”

The case is, at its core, about “free and fair trade,” Khan added. Though no settlement has been reached, she said there’s always a possibility of a settlement before the case concludes.

With President Donald Trump regularly holding court with tech executives, Khan said she’s “glad” that Meta and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s efforts to dismiss the case have been, thus far, unsuccessful.

Zuckerberg donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund, co-hosted an inaugural ball and has reportedly met with the president multiple times since January.

“Until the trial is over and until we actually get a liability verdict and then a remedy, we’re all going to have to wait and see,” Khan said.

Meta apologized on Thursday and said it had fixed an “error” that resulted in some Instagram users reporting a flood of violent and graphic content recommended on their personal “Reels” page. 

“We have fixed an error that caused some users to see content in their Instagram Reels feed that should not have been recommended. We apologize for the mistake,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement shared with CNBC. 

The statement comes after a number of Instagram users took to various social media platforms to voice concerns about a recent influx of violent and “not safe for work” content recommendations.

Some users claimed they saw such content, even with Instagram’s “Sensitive Content Control” enabled to its highest moderation setting.

According to Meta policy, the company works to protect users from disturbing imagery and removes content that is particularly violent or graphic. 

Prohibited content may include “videos depicting dismemberment, visible innards or charred bodies,” as well as “sadistic remarks towards imagery depicting the suffering of humans and animals.” 

However, Meta says it does allow some graphic content if it helps users to condemn and raise awareness about important issues such as human rights abuses, armed conflicts or acts of terrorism. Such content may come with limitations, such as warning labels.

On Wednesday night in the U.S., CNBC was able to view several posts on Instagram reels that appeared to show dead bodies, graphic injuries and violent assaults. The posts were labeled “Sensitive Content.”

According to Meta’s website, it uses internal technology and a team of more than 15,000 reviewers to help detect disturbing imagery. 

The technology, which includes artificial intelligence and machine learning tools, helps prioritize posts and remove “the vast majority of violating content” before users even report it, the website states.

Furthermore, Meta works to avoid recommending content on its platforms that may be “low-quality, objectionable, sensitive or inappropriate for younger viewers,” it adds.

In a statement published on Jan. 7, the company announced that it was changing the way it enforces some of its content policies in order to reduce mistakes that had led to users being censored.

Meta said this included updating its automated systems from scanning “for all policy violations” to focusing on “illegal and high-severity violations, like terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud and scams.” For less severe policy violations, the company said it would rely on users to report issues before taking action.  

Meanwhile, Meta added that its systems were demoting too much content based on predictions that it “might” violate standards and that it was in the process of “getting rid of most of these demotions.”

CEO Mark Zuckerberg also announced that the company would allow more political content and change its third party fact-checking program with a “Community Notes” model, similar to the system on Elon Musk’s platform X.

The moves have widely been seen as an effort by Zuckerberg to mend ties with U.S. President Donald Trump, who has criticized Meta’s moderation policies in the past.

According to a Meta spokesperson on X, the CEO visited the White House earlier this month “to discuss how Meta can help the administration defend and advance American tech leadership abroad.” 

As part of a wave of tech layoffs in 2022 and 2023, Meta cut 21,000 employees, nearly a quarter of its workforce, which affected much of its civic integrity and trust and safety teams.