On the Record

• Instagram’s counsel directed employees to remove teen-harm statistics from an executive presentation.
• CEO Adam Mosseri testified he never authorized anyone to limit the information reaching him.
• Meta later agreed to a maximum $16.68 billion settlement while denying wrongdoing.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

OAKLAND, Calif. — A courtroom revelation involving Instagram’s lawyers and internal teen-safety research placed CEO Adam Mosseri in an uncomfortable position Tuesday when he testified that he did not know potentially damaging statistics had been removed from a presentation intended for him.

“This is all news to me,” Mosseri reportedly told jurors during the California federal proceeding.

The exchange occurred during a landmark case accusing Meta Platforms of designing Instagram and Facebook to keep children engaged while concealing information about potential psychological and safety risks.

Jurors were shown internal communications indicating that an Instagram lawyer instructed employees to remove certain statistics from a July 2023 teen-safety presentation to limit Mosseri’s exposure to the information and reduce his “litigation exposure risk.”

The presentation reportedly showed that content concerning suicide, self-injury and eating disorders attracted a disproportionately large teen audience—approximately 2.5 times the adult audience. It also indicated that teens encountered certain “non-recommendable” content at roughly 1.5 times the rate experienced by adults.

Instagram Director of Product Design Francesco Fogu testified that he was surprised by the attorney’s instruction because he had never previously been told to hide data from company leadership. Fogu said employees were ultimately permitted to discuss the information verbally and that the underlying reports remained accessible through links included in the presentation.

That distinction is legally significant. The evidence showed that statistics were removed from an executive slide deck—not necessarily that Meta destroyed the underlying data. No judicial finding established that company attorneys committed spoliation, obstructed discovery or otherwise engaged in misconduct.

Nevertheless, the instruction raised a serious corporate-governance question. In litigation centered on what Meta knew about risks to children, evidence suggesting that lawyers sought to control what reached Instagram’s highest-ranking executive could become relevant to knowledge, intent and the credibility of Meta’s public safety representations.

Mosseri testified that he had never participated in discussions about limiting his access to internal information. He said he did not encourage employees to hide unfavorable findings and understood the lawyers’ role to include reviewing documents for accuracy, legal compliance and potential legal implications.

The testimony also focused on Instagram’s “Take a Break” feature, which encourages users to leave the platform after scrolling for a specified period. According to courtroom reporting, only a small percentage of teens activated the feature before Instagram eventually enabled it by default for teen accounts in September 2024.

Mosseri had publicly emphasized that more than 90% of teens who activated the tool kept it enabled. The states, however, focused on evidence suggesting only approximately 1.8% of teen users initially chose to activate it.

Mosseri defended Instagram’s efforts, telling the court that the company moved forward with the feature even though most teenagers did not want it. Meta maintained that its broader safety record should not be judged by the early adoption rate of one tool.

The case formed part of In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3047, before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey pursued state consumer-protection claims, while 29 states alleged violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

One day after Mosseri’s testimony, Meta agreed to pay a maximum of $16.68 billion to resolve the states’ claims. The agreement includes nationwide teen safeguards involving usage limits and nighttime restrictions. Meta denied wrongdoing.

Because the settlement ended the trial before a verdict, the testimony concerning the altered presentation did not result in a formal finding of liability. It nonetheless exposed a central question that may continue following Meta into other litigation—whether protecting the company from legal exposure took priority over ensuring its leadership confronted the full scope of risks facing young users.

About the Author

Samuel López is a Senior Legal Analyst, investigative journalist and legal researcher with more than two decades of experience examining complex litigation, evidentiary disputes, corporate records and high-stakes legal controversies. His reporting draws upon extensive experience analyzing courtroom proceedings, discovery evidence and internal communications to explain how corporate decision-making intersects with consumer protection, regulatory enforcement and public accountability.

Get the Story Behind the Headline

If this report gave you valuable insight, join readers who rely on the USA Herald newsletter for exclusive investigations, breaking legal analysis and consequential stories that go beyond the headlines.

👉 Follow USA Herald on X @RealUSAHerald