The 5 Instagram Features That US States Say Ruin Teens’ Mental Health

In 2019, Instagram’s top executive, Adam Mosseri, went on TV to describe how the Meta-owned social media app was “rethinking the whole experience” to prioritize the “well-being” of users above all else. Today, a bipartisan group of attorneys general representing 42 US states alleged in a series of lawsuits that Mosseri’s remarks were part of a decade-long pattern of deceit by Meta that claimed Instagram and Facebook were safe, while they in fact did young people harm.

The suits claim Meta put user engagement ahead of user safety. “Despite overwhelming internal research, independent expert analysis, and publicly available data that its social media platforms harm young users, Meta still refuses to abandon its use of known harmful features—and has instead redoubled its efforts to misrepresent, conceal, and downplay the impact of those features on young users’ mental and physical health,” alleges the main lawsuit, led by Colorado and Tennessee. About 22 million US teenagers use Instagram each day, it says.

Meta spokesperson Liza Crenshaw says the company has introduced over 30 tools, such as parental controls and usage limiters, to support young users who, she notes, also suffer from growing academic pressure, rising income inequality, and limited mental healthcare services. “We share the attorneys general’s commitment to providing teens with safe, positive experiences online,” Crenshaw says. “We’re disappointed that instead of working productively with companies across the industry to create clear, age-appropriate standards for the many apps teens use, the attorneys general have chosen this path.”

Filed in federal court in Oakland, California, where a judge is already hearing a similar lawsuit by consumers against several social media companies, the states’ case seeks to bar Meta from continuing the allegedly deceptive practices and force it to pay unspecified fines. The complaint lays out five features claimed to be “harmful and psychologically manipulative” because they “induce young users’ compulsive and extended” use of Instagram.

The states say Meta designed Instagram’s algorithms, which determine what content users see in their feeds, to expressly keep them hooked. By presenting posts in order of expected interest rather than chronologically, Meta is able to benefit from what psychologists describe as “variable reward schedules,” according to the lawsuit, that turn feeds into something like a slot machine. Users are conditioned to keep coming back and scrolling endlessly in hopes of receiving hits of the neurotransmitter dopamine when they come across content that brings them pleasure, the lawsuit claims.

According to the lawsuit, researchers working for Instagram found at one point that the way the app encourages teens to compare themselves with peers and question themselves was “more damaging to mental health” than cyberbullying. That finding became public in 2021 when former Facebook employee Frances Haugen leaked thousands of company documents and helped accelerate the states’ investigation.

The Like count visible on Instagram posts provides a ready way for people to compare themselves to others. Instagram has offered the option of hiding that tally, but has left it visible by default. “Meta could have, at a minimum, hidden Like counts for young users of Instagram and Facebook, but it declined to do so,” the lawsuit states.

California attorney general Rob Bonta told reporters today that the states know Meta had internal discussions about the negative impact of the Like button, but decided to keep it anyway. “Today we draw the line,” he says. “We must protect our children online and we will not back down from this fight.”

About 16 percent of US high school students over the course of a year suffered cyberbullying, including through Instagram and Facebook, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report published in February. It reported a decade-high rate of sadness or hopelessness among US teen girls.

By nudging users with alerts throughout the day urging them to check their Instagram app, Meta has knowingly preyed on young users who are “particularly susceptible to these techniques and find it hard to resist,” the states claim. While Instagram has added features that enable users to turn off and pause notifications, the options are manipulatively designed, the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit claims the wording of the options in Instagram’s settings are designed to pressure users to keep notifications on for Instagram even after they have attempted to turn them off.

Much of the states’ evidence related to virtual image filters, which users can use to adorn their photos and videos, is redacted because it is based on confidential company information. The states are seeking court permission to eventually publicize their specific claims. What’s already clear is that states view appearance-tuning filters, like those that smooth out wrinkles and blemishes, as promoting problematic ideals of bodies and contributing to body image issues and eating disorders among teenagers.

The states’ final allegation is that if young users attempt to self-regulate their social media usage, Meta discourages them with features that keep them addicted. For instance, ephemeral content such as Instagram Stories, available to view for only 24 hours before disappearing, can make users feel they must constantly tune in to see new uploads before they vanish. The states also take exception with the infinite scroll system of Instagram’s feeds, which keeps loading new content as users swipe. “Because there is no natural end point for the display of new information,” users are again triggered to fear they’ll miss out if they don’t keep looking for new content, according to the lawsuit.

Massachusetts attorney general Andrea Joy Campbell told reporters that while seeking profit isn’t wrong, doing so with “unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct” becomes unlawful. Meta “knew exactly how these design decisions could and would help young people to the point of addiction, and yet [Meta continued] to use them and, in many cases, rejected using feasible alternatives that they knew would mitigate harm to our young people,” she says.

Whether services such as Instagram are truly damaging to young users remains up for debate. A US Surgeon General Advisory statement in May concluded that more research is needed, though it acknowledged that “there are ample indicators” about social media’s profound risk to childrens’ mental health. Ultimately, the states’ case will hinge on whether Meta overpromised and underdelivered in terms of protections for children—and even if the states lose, new laws being pursued across states and countries could force curbs on features.