Zuckerberg faces tough questions in major social media addiction trial

Mark Zuckerberg, the head of Meta, appeared tense and serious as he took the stand in a Los Angeles courtroom on Wednesday. It was his first time speaking in front of a jury, and the pressure was clear. He was there to defend his company against claims that platforms like Instagram were designed in a way that made children addicted.

Lawyers for the families suing Meta showed internal company emails and research documents, arguing that Meta knowingly targeted young users. Zuckerberg pushed back, saying the lawyers were “misrepresenting” what those messages really meant. Still, as the documents were read aloud in court, the room felt heavy.

The trial is being closely watched because it could affect thousands of similar lawsuits across the United States. Google’s YouTube is also part of the case. TikTok and Snapchat were originally included too, but they reached settlements before the trial began. The details of those deals were not shared.

Meta has long said it does not allow children under 13 on its platforms and that it works hard to protect teens. But during the trial, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mark Lanier, presented emails showing company leaders discussing teenage users and how to keep them engaged.

One 2019 email, sent to Zuckerberg and other top executives, pointed out that age restrictions were not being strongly enforced. The message said this made it “difficult to claim we’re doing all we can.” The email was written by Nick Clegg, who later became Meta’s head of global affairs.

Another report from 2019, created by an outside research company for Instagram, found that many teens felt “hooked” on the app. According to the report, teenagers said Instagram could make them feel both good and bad, and some wished they cared less about it. The report even said some teens described their usage in a way that sounded like addiction.

Zuckerberg responded by saying the research was not done directly by Meta. Later, Meta’s lawyer, Paul Schmidt, highlighted that the same report also mentioned positive experiences teens had on Instagram. He said the company studies user behavior to improve the platform, not to harm users.

In another document from 2018, the company discussed successfully keeping “tweens” — children under 13 — on the platform, even though such users were not officially allowed. Zuckerberg said he regretted not moving faster to identify underage users but believed the company had improved over time. He also said teens make up less than 1% of Meta’s advertising revenue.

At one point, Zuckerberg admitted that earlier in the company’s history, he had pushed for goals like increasing the amount of time people spent on Facebook and Instagram. In a 2015 email, he mentioned wanting to see time spent increase by 12% and to reverse a drop in teen usage. A 2017 message from another executive even said that teens were the company’s “top priority.”

However, Zuckerberg said the company’s focus has changed. He explained that if Meta had only cared about keeping users online longer, it would not have survived this long. He said he has worked for years to reduce “problematic use” because “it’s the right thing to do.”

Meta’s lawyers also mentioned tools introduced in 2018 that allow users to set daily time limits and turn off notifications at night. But Lanier showed data revealing that very few teens actually use those tools. For example, only about 1.1% of teen users set daily time limits.

Sitting quietly in the courtroom was the lead plaintiff, known publicly only by her initials, K.G.M. She began using Instagram at just nine years old. Across from her sat Zuckerberg, surrounded by security and associates. The contrast was striking.

Some parents who lost children were also present. Many others stood outside the courthouse, holding photos and wearing badges with their children’s faces. Their pain was visible.

Lori Schott, whose daughter Annalee died by suicide at 18, spoke emotionally outside the court. Wearing a badge with her daughter’s picture, she said, “These platforms can change. It wouldn’t take long to change the algorithmic content so kids aren’t killing themselves. Is it that hard to do, Mr. Zuckerberg?” Her voice carried both anger and heartbreak.

The trial is expected to continue for several weeks. Former Meta employees are expected to testify. YouTube’s CEO, Neal Mohan, was once expected to appear but will no longer be called.

Last week, Instagram head Adam Mosseri questioned the idea that social media is addictive. He argued that even using Instagram for 16 hours in one day does not necessarily prove addiction. Zuckerberg added that when something has value, people naturally use it more.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer replied that people who are addicted also tend to increase their use. Zuckerberg paused before answering, “I don’t know what to say to that. I think that may be true, but I don’t know if that applies here.”

This case is just one of thousands filed by families, school districts, and state officials across the country. Many claim that social media companies built platforms that are addictive and harmful to children.

In another case, 29 state attorneys general are asking a federal court in California to force companies like Meta to immediately remove all accounts belonging to children under 13, even before a trial begins.

Meanwhile, several countries are considering stricter rules. Australia recently banned social media accounts for children under 16. The UK, Denmark, France, and Spain are discussing similar actions.

As the courtroom debates continue, one thing is clear: for many families, this case is not just about policies or profits. It is about loss, responsibility, and the hope that something might finally change.