Meta chief govt Mark Zuckerberg confronted sustained questioning in a Los Angeles courtroom on Wednesday as a landmark trial over social media harms moved right into a pivotal part, with plaintiffs arguing that platforms equivalent to Instagram had been intentionally designed to maintain younger customers hooked regardless of inside warnings.
The case, being heard in Los Angeles Superior Court docket, is one in every of a number of main lawsuits this yr that specialists have likened to the business’s “Large Tobacco” second. At its core is a declare introduced by a 20-year-old lady, identified in courtroom filings as KGM, who says her compulsive use of Instagram and YouTube worsened her melancholy and suicidal ideas. Her lawsuit is one in every of about 20 bellwether instances getting used to check how juries reply to arguments about dangerous product design quite than particular person content material.
Zuckerberg questioned on underage Instagram customers and age verification failures
A central focus of Wednesday’s testimony was whether or not Meta took sufficient steps to maintain kids underneath 13 off Instagram, which requires customers to be at the very least 13.
Zuckerberg stated the corporate had improved its capability to detect underage customers, however conceded it had not moved quick sufficient. “I at all times want that we might have gotten there sooner,” he informed the courtroom.
He stated some customers lie about their age when becoming a member of Instagram and that Meta removes accounts it identifies as underage. Plaintiffs’ legal professionals challenged the credibility of that system, arguing that the corporate relied too closely on formal insurance policies quite than enforceable limitations.
“You count on a nine-year-old to learn the entire superb print? That’s your foundation for swearing underneath oath that kids underneath 13 will not be allowed?” a lawyer requested.
After repeated questioning about age verification, Zuckerberg responded: “I don’t see why that is so sophisticated.”
Meta chief says firm duty ought to prolong to customers’ wellbeing
Because the plaintiffs tried to border Meta’s merchandise as a public well being concern quite than a client desire, Zuckerberg was requested about what obligations a expertise firm owes its customers.
“I feel an inexpensive firm ought to attempt to assist the folks that use its companies,” he stated.
The assertion echoed a broader theme operating by means of the trial: that social media corporations, like producers in earlier waves of litigation, needs to be held accountable not merely for what seems on their platforms, however for the way in which these platforms are constructed — and the behaviours they encourage.
Magnificence filters: Zuckerberg says Meta consulted stakeholders however prioritised free expression
The testimony additionally returned to a long-running debate inside Meta over Instagram’s magnificence filters, which critics say contribute to distorted self-image and anxiousness amongst younger customers.
Zuckerberg stated Meta consulted “varied stakeholders” about using the filters, although he didn’t identify them.
Plaintiffs’ legal professionals questioned him about inside messages suggesting he lifted a ban on sure filters as a result of he believed the restriction was extreme.
“It appears like one thing I’d say and one thing I really feel,” Zuckerberg replied. “It feels somewhat overbearing.”
He was pressed on why the corporate allowed the characteristic even after receiving steering from specialists that magnificence filters had unfavourable results, notably on younger ladies.
Legal professionals referenced a College of Chicago research through which 18 specialists stated magnificence filters as a characteristic trigger hurt to teenage ladies. Zuckerberg stated he noticed the suggestions and mentioned it internally, however stated the choice finally got here right down to free expression.
Engagement targets and inside metrics: Zuckerberg disputes “firm objectives”
The trial has additionally scrutinised whether or not Meta set express targets to extend time spent on Instagram, an allegation on the coronary heart of claims that the platform was engineered for dependancy.
Zuckerberg pushed again on the notion that growing engagement was an organization purpose. He was questioned a couple of 2015 e-mail thread through which he appeared to spotlight bettering engagement metrics as an pressing matter. Zuckerberg stated that whereas the e-mail chain might have contained the phrases “firm objectives”, the feedback might have been aspirational, and he insisted Meta doesn’t have these targets.
Plaintiffs later launched proof from Instagram chief Adam Mosseri that included objectives to lift every day engagement time to 40 minutes in 2023 and to 46 minutes in 2026.
Zuckerberg stated Meta makes use of inside milestones to measure itself towards opponents and “ship the outcomes we need to see”, sustaining that the corporate is constructing companies to assist individuals join.
Choose warns towards recording testimony with AI sensible glasses
Courtroom decorum grew to become a flashpoint after Choose Carolyn B. Kuhl warned that anybody recording Zuckerberg’s testimony utilizing AI sensible glasses can be held in contempt.
“If in case you have executed that, you will need to delete that, or you may be held in contempt of the courtroom,” the decide stated. “That is very severe.”
The warning got here after members of Zuckerberg’s safety element had been photographed sporting Meta Ray-Ban synthetic intelligence glasses exterior the courtroom. Recording will not be allowed within the courtroom.
Board management and media awkwardness: Zuckerberg revisits outdated remarks
Legal professionals additionally questioned Zuckerberg about his prior statements suggesting the Meta board couldn’t meaningfully take away him due to his voting energy.
“If the board needs to fireplace me, I might elect a brand new board and reinstate myself,” he stated, referring to remarks made on Joe Rogan’s podcast.
He additionally acknowledged his discomfort underneath public questioning.
“I feel I’m truly well-known to be form of dangerous at this,” he stated.
Zuckerberg informed the courtroom he’s “very dangerous” at media.
A case constructed on design, not content material, seeks to bypass tech’s conventional authorized defend
The trial marks the primary time Zuckerberg has confronted a jury at a civil trial over baby security issues. For years, expertise corporations have leaned on federal protections that largely defend them from legal responsibility for user-posted content material.
Plaintiffs on this litigation have pursued a unique technique. Their argument will not be primarily about particular person posts or movies, however about product design — options they are saying had been supposed to maximise engagement, reward compulsive use, and maintain customers scrolling.
That strategy has to date allowed the instances to sidestep the business’s most acquainted authorized defence.
The bellwether instances and what’s at stake for the tech business
The Los Angeles case involving KGM is one in every of roughly 20 bellwether lawsuits designed to gauge jury reactions earlier than lots of of comparable claims proceed.
TikTok and Snap settled within the preliminary trial however stay defendants in different instances tied to the broader litigation.
Zuckerberg’s testimony got here a couple of week after Mosseri appeared on the stand. Mosseri pushed again on the science behind social media dependancy, saying customers couldn’t be “clinically addicted”. He described kids’s excessive utilization of Instagram as “problematic use”, similar to “watching TV for longer than you be ok with”.
Whereas psychologists don’t classify social media dependancy as an official prognosis, researchers have documented the dangerous penalties of compulsive use amongst younger individuals, and lawmakers globally have raised issues about addictive design.
Meta disputes the function Instagram performed in KGM’s psychological well being
Meta’s defence has sought to acknowledge KGM’s psychological well being struggles whereas disputing that Instagram performed a big function in exacerbating them.
Paul Schmidt, one in every of Meta’s attorneys, stated in an earlier opening assertion that the corporate accepted KGM’s psychological well being points however argued that Instagram was not the first driver. Schmidt cited medical information suggesting the central concern was a troublesome house life.
Households and advocates say courtroom might ship what Congress has not
The litigation is being carefully watched by households who argue that legislative motion has stalled regardless of years of hearings and public scrutiny.
Two years in the past, Zuckerberg confronted comparable questions throughout a tense congressional listening to on baby exploitation. In January 2024, he turned in direction of grieving mother and father and apologised, promising continued funding to guard kids.
Some households stay unconvinced.
“His apology – if you’ll name it that – was principally empty,” stated John DeMay, whose 17-year-old son Jordan died by suicide in 2022, hours after being focused in a web-based sextortion rip-off on Instagram. “He mainly stated they’re doing all the pieces they’ll to cease and forestall these items from occurring and sadly that’s simply not the case.”
DeMay, who has travelled incessantly to Washington to advocate for on-line baby security, stated he now has higher religion within the courts than in Congress.
“I’m hopeful that this case prevails but when it doesn’t, we nonetheless gained as a result of we confirmed the world – with on the file proof – that they’re doing one factor and saying one other,” he stated.
Meta faces different lawsuits as baby security claims unfold throughout states
Meta can be preventing separate litigation in New Mexico, the place prosecutors accuse the corporate of violating client safety legal guidelines by failing to reveal what it knew about potential harms to kids. Meta has denied the allegations.
Instagram has added security options lately aimed toward youthful customers, however advocacy teams argue these instruments stay inconsistent.
A 2025 evaluate by Fairplay, a non-profit targeted on decreasing the affect of massive expertise on kids, concluded “that lower than one in 5 are totally useful and two-thirds (64%) are both considerably ineffective or not exist”.
Former staff have additionally raised issues in regards to the firm’s inside tradition. Kelly Stonelake, a former Meta worker, stated she left on medical go away in February 2023 after harassment and retaliation for elevating baby security issues. She sued Meta final yr, alleging a sample of silencing girls.
She alleges Meta was accumulating knowledge on kids with out parental consent and exposing them to different adults and “an surroundings that we knew was riddled with harassment and bullying”.
Why the trial is being known as social media’s “Large Tobacco” second
The phrase has emerged as shorthand for a authorized and political reckoning: an try to ascertain that social media corporations, like tobacco companies in earlier many years, knew their merchandise might hurt customers however did not act decisively.
For Meta, Zuckerberg’s look positioned the corporate’s inside deliberations — and the unresolved stress between free expression, security, and business incentives — underneath a degree of courtroom scrutiny not often seen within the expertise sector.
And for the broader business, the result might form not solely monetary legal responsibility, but in addition the design norms which have outlined social media for greater than a decade.