Were you or your child harmed by Instagram?

Paragraph 137 quotes Zuckerberg’s evidence to Congress on 25 March 2021: “it is a common misconception that our teams—our goals, or even have goals, of trying to increase the amount of time that people spend” and “I don’t give our News Feed team or our Instagram team goals around increasing the amount of time that people spend.” Paragraph 143 states: “in a December 2015 email, Zuckerberg listed one of Meta’s goals for 2016 as seeing the ‘[t]ime spent [on the Platforms] increase[] by 12%’ over the following three years.” Paragraph 146 quotes an internal presentation titled “2017 Teens Strategic Focus”, which stated Meta’s “goal: retain MAP [Monthly Active People] and DAP [Daily Active People], [and] grow teen time spent”. Paragraph 416 states that in 2016, after a Q&A at which a mother asked about “how her daughter feels worse about herself after using Instagram”, a Meta researcher emailed Zuckerberg: “thought you’d be interested in some of the relevant research our team’s done on social comparison”, showing that “4% of feed stories trigger negative social comparison”. Paragraph 417 alleges that in April 2019 Meta’s researchers told Zuckerberg that passive consumption of social media content “is associated with negative effects on well-being”. These are allegations in a complaint filed by attorneys general, not findings of a court. A copy of the complaint is hosted on this site.

The court recorded the Commonwealth’s allegation that Meta designed Instagram “to exploit children’s psychological vulnerabilities”, and ruled: “For the reasons set out below, that motion is denied.” On Section 230 the judge wrote: “Meta contends that the Commonwealth’s claims … are barred by Section 230. As explained below, I disagree.” The judge also wrote that “the Complaint is primarily based on Meta’s own conduct, not third-party content.” This is a ruling on a motion to dismiss, which accepts the complaint’s allegations as true. It is not a finding that they are proved. A copy of the order is hosted on this site.

Béjar, who returned to Instagram’s well-being team as a consultant in 2019, told senators: “In a carefully designed survey by Instagram in 2021, we found that one in eight kids age 13 to 15 years old” had “experienced unwanted sexual advances in the last seven days”. He said he “informed Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and other executives”, and answered a senator’s question about Zuckerberg: “He did not reply.” He also said: “Meta knows the harm that kids experience on their platform” and “they’re deciding time and time again to not tackle these issues.” This is testimony from a former employee to a Senate subcommittee, not a court finding. These words are from his answers at the hearing, as recorded in the Tech Policy Press transcript; his written statement is held on our source documents page.

Haugen wrote: “I believe that Facebook’s products harm children, stoke division, weaken our democracy and much more”, and “Facebook chooses profit over safety every day”. She said the documents she provided “prove that Facebook has repeatedly misled us about what its own research reveals about the safety of children”. This is her testimony and her opinion, not a court finding. Her written statement is held on our source documents page.

Sattizahn, a Meta researcher from 2018 to 2024, told senators: “Legal’s repeated explicit statements to me was that we did not want this data because it was too risky for us to have because if there was an outside audit, it would be discovered that Meta knew about these harms. That was said to me dozens of times by my direct legal partners that I was forced to work with from Meta.” He also said: “We were also threatened by lawyers. I want to make that clear. It wasn’t a suggestion.” Savage, a Meta researcher from 2019 to 2023, wrote in her written statement: “I was given a legal counterpart to scrutinize everything that I did, to tell me what research I could and couldn’t do, and to ensure my research reports would not create ‘risk’ for Meta should they be publicly disclosed. I was told not to investigate the kinds of harm children were experiencing in VR, and made to feel I was risking my job if I pressed the matter.” These statements concern Meta’s virtual reality products and are testimony to a Senate subcommittee, not a court finding. Sattizahn’s words are from his answers at the hearing, as recorded in the Tech Policy Press transcript, which it describes as lightly edited. Savage’s words are from her written statement, which is held on our source documents page.

NPR reported Zuckerberg’s words in court. On beauty filters: “What we allowed was letting people use those filters if they wanted but deciding not to recommend them to people. So that was the balance we came to to let people express themselves the way they want.” Asked about a Meta document on 10-year-olds’ time on Instagram, he said: “I don’t remember the context of this email from more than ten years ago. I think the way we should build things is to build useful services for people to connect with their family and friends and learn about the world.” These are NPR’s reports of testimony, not a transcript or a court finding. NPR also wrote: “Meta and Google, which owns YouTube, have said the accusations over-simplify the complexity of adolescent mental health issues.”

Rolling Stone reported that, asked about the December 2015 email in which he hoped to increase “time spent” by at least 12 percent over three years, Zuckerberg replied: “I believe I wrote this email, if that’s what you’re asking. And, like I said, we used to have goals around this, and at some point, I decided to change that.” On beauty filters, Rolling Stone wrote: “When confronted with evidence that 18 mental-health experts had warned the company that such filters could harm teenage girls, Zuckerberg said the experts had not presented ‘any data I found compelling.’” It added that, pressed on an internal message about “being paternalistic” in banning the filters, “Zuckerberg said he didn’t want to be ‘overbearing’ in dictating how people express themselves.” On under-13s, after being shown a 2018 document estimating 4 million users younger than 13, he replied: “It’s been our clear policy that people under 13 are not allowed on our services. [We’ve] been pretty consistent.” These are Rolling Stone’s reports of testimony, not a transcript or a court finding.

The Associated Press reported that, asked by plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Lanier whether people tend to use something more if it is addictive, Zuckerberg said: “I’m not sure what to say to that. I don’t think that applies here.” On age limits, the ABA Journal quoted him: “I generally think that there are a set of people, potentially meaningful number of people, who lie about their age in order to use our services.” AP also reported that, as of early afternoon, “Zuckerberg has not directly answered the central question of the case: whether Instagram is addictive.” These are press reports of testimony, not a transcript or a court finding.

The Associated Press reported that, asked whether users had repeatedly told the company and Zuckerberg personally that they find the products addictive, Zuckerberg replied: “I think people sometimes use that word colloquially. That’s not what we’re trying to do with the products, and it’s not how I think they work.” Asked about time-spent goals, AP quoted him: “Yes, I think we focused on time spent as one of the major engagement goals. Sometime during 2017 and beyond — for, at this point, most of the last 10 years — we’ve focused on other metrics.” On beauty filters, AP quoted him: “I care a lot about not cracking down on the ways that people can express themselves and there’s, like, always been a lot of pressure to do that and censor our services. I didn’t find any of the anecdotal examples that people used to be convincing that it was actually clear evidence that this was going to be harmful.” This is AP’s report of a recorded deposition played in court, not a transcript. AP also wrote: “Attorneys for Meta say the company discloses risks and makes efforts to weed out harmful content and experiences — acknowledging that some bad material still gets through its safety net.”

The Associated Press reported that Mosseri “disagrees with the idea that people can be clinically addicted to social media platforms”. It wrote that he uses the term “problematic use” to refer to “someone spending more time on Instagram than they feel good about, and that definitely happens.” AP reported that the plaintiff’s lawyer presented quotes from a podcast interview in which Mosseri used the term addiction in relation to social media, and that he said he was probably using the term “too casually”. This is a press report of testimony, not a transcript or a court finding.

The Associated Press quoted Mosseri: “we will prioritize safety over profits.” AP wrote that prosecutors “juxtaposed that assertion with the company’s internal audits, emails and messages about proposed social media features”. On addiction: “I’m not a scientist, but I don’t believe the latest science suggests that social media platforms are addictive.” This is AP’s report of a recorded deposition played in court, not a transcript or a court finding.

Mark Zuckerberg’s own written testimony states: “Mental health is a complex issue, and the existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes.” The same statement quotes a National Academies of Sciences report that “did not support the conclusion that social media causes changes in adolescent mental health at the population level.” A copy of the testimony is hosted on this site.

Senator John Kennedy asked Mark Zuckerberg: “Instagram is harmful to young people, isn’t it?” Zuckerberg answered: “Senator, I disagree with that. That’s not what the research shows on balance. That doesn’t mean that individual people don’t have issues and that there aren’t things that we need to do to help provide the right tools for people”. These are spoken words taken from the Tech Policy Press transcript of the hearing, which is machine-assisted and may contain transcription errors.

Senator Jon Ossoff asked Mark Zuckerberg whether he wanted teenagers aged 13 to 17 to use Meta’s products more or less. Zuckerberg answered: “I’d like them to be useful enough that they want to use them more.” Asked whether the company had an obligation to get users under 18 to engage more, he said: “It depends on how you define that. We obviously are a business”. These are spoken words taken from the Tech Policy Press transcript of the hearing, which is machine-assisted and may contain transcription errors.

Senator Josh Hawley read to Mark Zuckerberg quotations that he attributed to Instagram’s own research, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, including “We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls.” Zuckerberg answered: “Senator. We try to understand the feedback and how people feel about the services. We can improve”. When Hawley then described survey figures from a former senior Meta executive who had testified to the Senate and asked who had been fired, Zuckerberg answered: “Senator. We study all of this because it’s important and we want to improve our services.” The senator’s statements are his own. These are spoken words taken from the Tech Policy Press transcript of the hearing, which is machine-assisted and may contain transcription errors.

Senator Richard Blumenthal said to Adam Mosseri: “Instagram is addictive.” Mosseri answered: “Senator, respectfully, I don’t believe the research suggests that our products are addictive. Research actually shows that on 11 of 12 difficult issues that teens face, teens that are struggling said Instagram helps for their harms.” This is from the official Government Publishing Office transcript, a copy of which is hosted on this site.

Senator Amy Klobuchar asked Adam Mosseri: “And is it true that someone in your company said that it was an existential threat if you lost teen users?” After she pressed, saying a document said so, Mosseri answered: “Senator, I assume that is true.” This is from the official Government Publishing Office transcript, a copy of which is hosted on this site.

The BBC reported that, in his opening argument for the claimant, her lawyer Mark Lanier told the jury: “These companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children, and they did it on purpose.” The BBC also reported on a 2015 email shown to the court which, it said, demanded that “time spent increases by 12%” on Meta platforms. This is a lawyer’s opening argument, not evidence, and Meta’s lawyers told the jury that the claimant’s difficulties stemmed from other issues in her life.

On PBS NewsHour, NPR technology correspondent Bobby Allyn described Mark Zuckerberg’s answers on the stand, saying he often responded to the claimant’s lawyers with lines such as “I think you’re mischaracterizing me” and “I think you’re taking this document out of context.” Allyn said Zuckerberg was trying to show that “the lawyers in the case were basically trying to lawyer him”. These are Allyn’s reported words about the testimony, not a transcript of it. PBS anchor Amna Nawaz introduced the segment by saying it was the first time he had testified about child safety in front of a jury.

The BBC reported Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony in the Los Angeles trial. It wrote that Zuckerberg “always” regretted not making faster progress to identify users under 13, and that he “noted that teen users represented “less than 1%” of ad revenue for the company”. It quoted him: “You’re mischaracterising what I’m saying. I’m not surprised that people internally were studying this.” It reported that “In one from 2015, Zuckerberg told a group of executives that his goals for the year included seeing “time spent increase by 12%” and the “teen trend be reversed.”” It reported that he said “at an earlier point in the company” he gave executives goals to increase time spent, “but insisted that was no longer how the company operated”, and that he had worked for years to address “problematic use” of platforms like Instagram “because it’s the right thing to do.” Asked by the plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Lanier about addicted people increasing their use, the BBC quoted him: “I don’t know what to say to that. I think that may be true but I don’t know if that applies here.” These are the BBC’s reports of what was said and shown in court.

When Senator Josh Hawley asked whether he wanted to apologise to families harmed by Meta’s products, CBS News reported that Mark Zuckerberg turned to the families in the room and said: “I’m sorry for everything you have all been through. No one should go through the things that your families have suffered.”

One slide said: “We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls.” Another study reported that 13.5% of UK teenage girls said Instagram made suicidal thoughts worse. In Meta’s research, more than 40% of users who reported feeling unattractive said the feeling began on Instagram. Leaked documents, not court findings.

An internal Meta document (Exhibit 366) describes consulting “18 experts”, with “A large majority, including individuals in the AR field,” recommending that the filters be prohibited “citing known impacts to body image and mental health”. The plaintiffs’ brief says Meta lifted a temporary ban in May 2020, when Zuckerberg directed teams to “allow people to create and share face-altering effects on Instagram” but “not allow these effects to be discovered or promoted in our Effects Gallery” (Exhibit 372). A senior executive wrote to him: “I respect your call on this and I’ll support it, but want to just say for the record that I don’t think it’s the right call given the risks” (Exhibit 374). The Massachusetts complaint names her as Margaret Gould Stewart and quotes other emails citing “nearly 20” and “21” experts. These are allegations in court filings, which Meta disputes. At the K.G.M. trial Zuckerberg testified that a ban felt “overbearing” and “paternalistic”.

A survey of 1,000 teens and parents concluded that “parental and household factors have little association with teens’ reported levels of attentiveness.” It was not published. Instagram head Adam Mosseri told the jury he could not recall the study. Meta says it was narrow and did not examine parental oversight.

NPR (Bobby Allyn, 18 February 2026) wrote: “One 2018 internal Meta document stated ‘If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens,’ Lanier pointed out”. This is NPR’s account of trial evidence, not a court finding.

NPR (Bobby Allyn, 18 February 2026) reported that plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Lanier “directed Zuckerberg’s attention to a 2020 internal Meta document showing that 11-year-olds were four times as likely to keep coming back to its apps, compared to older users.” NPR added: “Instagram and Facebook require users to be 13 to sign up.” This is NPR’s account of trial evidence, not a court finding.

One researcher wrote: “oh my gosh yall IG is a drug... We’re basically pushers... We are causing Reward Deficit Disorder bc people are binging on IG so much they can’t feel reward anymore”. A quotation of an internal document in a plaintiffs’ filing, not a finding of a court.

A message Zuckerberg sent employees at the end of 2015 said he hoped for a 12% increase in time spent over three years. A 2022 document set yearly targets for time per daily active user, from 40 minutes in 2023 to 46 minutes in 2026. Zuckerberg told the jury these were milestones rather than goals.