Former Meta scientist tells Oakland jury Instagram kept Take a Break opt-in
The safety tool’s problem was the default.
George Volichenko, a former Meta data scientist, told an Oakland jury this week that Instagram considered switching Take a Break on for everyone and then said no. The Next Web reports the testimony from MLex’s Mike Swift, who was in the courtroom.
Volichenko worked on Instagram’s mental wellbeing team from April 2022 to February 2023. Take a Break prompts a 10-minute pause once a session passes a set length. At the time it was opt-in.
He measured how many teenagers used it. Roughly two in every 1,000 weekly teenage users took up the excessive-use features. He called that very low, almost negligible.
Bloomberg’s Madlin Mekelburg, via The Next Web: fewer than 0.165% of teenage users switched the tool on and then took the break. A later review put it at 0.2%, which he called a drop in the ocean.
Making it opt-out was considered and refused, on the grounds that the trade-off to core metrics was not desirable. Volichenko: there was a lot of fear that an opt-out would produce large declines. If that happened, multiple levels of leadership would have to report it upwards and explain why they were tanking the numbers.
Adam Mosseri wrote on Meta’s website in 2021 that once teens set the reminders, more than 90% of them keep them on. Almost everyone who turned the tool on kept it. Almost nobody turned it on.
Arturo Bejar, a former Meta engineer and the states’ first witness last week, called Take a Break “designed to fail.” Most people never change the setting. The reminder could be snoozed.
Meta later introduced teen accounts for under-18s with Take a Break and other tools on by default, including late-night. Under-16s need parental consent to turn those off. In 2025 Meta said 97% of teenagers aged 13 to 15 keep the default restrictions on.
The states are arguing about what Meta said while the toggle was buried.
Volichenko quit after nine months, Courthouse News reports, because he was not happy with the limited freedom the team was given to devise, test, and launch features that would make a difference.
The Next Web, citing Courthouse News: a manager told him to announce the findings as improvements to the tool. The team existed partly to protect the company against the coming lawsuits.
He is testifying under subpoena by the states, unpaid. He has not appeared in prior addictive-design trials.
On cross, Meta lawyer Brian Stekloff said that if you do the math, that is nonetheless hundreds of thousands of teens. Volichenko agreed.
Stekloff asked if this had been a sham communication. Volichenko: “No, it was accurate. Our goal was reached. I just did not think it was an ambitious enough goal.”
Four states brought the case: California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey. People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms Inc., 23-cv-05448, Northern District of California.
An eight-person advisory jury sits. Chief U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decides. Proceedings opened August 17 and are expected to run six to eight weeks.
Rogers: this is not a platform-content case under Section 230. “The point of this trial is that Meta allegedly lied and misrepresented that the features are addictive.” “Had Meta said nothing, there would be no case.”
Courthouse News: if liable, penalties could reach up to $200 billion. Meta has said the four states are seeking $1.4 trillion.
Francesco Fogu, Instagram’s director of product design, took the stand next. Mosseri is expected this week. Courthouse News notes Mark Zuckerberg is slated to testify.
This is the first case in litigation covering more than 3,000 active claims, with another 25 states later.
The later teen default, and the 97% who keep it, is not the period the states are trying.
The goal was reached.
Pingback: Instagram's opt-in, Malone's empty chair, and Huawei's Egypt bid