Zuckerberg Faces Jury in Social Media Child Harm Trial
Mark Zuckerberg testified before a jury for the first time in a landmark Los Angeles Superior Court trial that questions whether Meta’s social media platforms were deliberately designed to addict children and cause mental health harm. The case centers on a 20-year-old plaintiff identified by the initials KGM, whose lawsuit alleges that her early use of Instagram contributed to depression and suicidal thoughts. Meta Platforms and Google’s YouTube are the two remaining defendants after TikTok and Snap reached settlements before the trial began.
The trial is one of the most consequential legal challenges ever faced by social media companies in the United States. Legal experts have drawn comparisons to past cases against tobacco manufacturers and opioid producers, noting that the core argument — that a company knowingly caused harm while prioritizing profits over user safety — follows a similar pattern. The outcome of the Los Angeles case, along with two other bellwether trials, could determine how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media platforms are resolved.
During his testimony, Zuckerberg maintained that the existing body of scientific research has not proven that social media causes mental health harm. He defended Instagram’s design choices and rejected the characterization that the platform is addictive. When asked about age verification, he argued that it is a complex technical challenge and suggested that smartphone manufacturers such as Apple should take a more active role in restricting underage access to platforms.
Internal company documents presented during the trial raised significant questions about Meta’s internal knowledge and decision-making. A 2015 email chain showed Zuckerberg pushing for a 12% increase in users’ time spent on the platform, contradicting statements he made during a previous congressional hearing in which he said Instagram employees were not given goals tied to increasing time spent on the app. Zuckerberg acknowledged during testimony that such goals existed in the past but said the company made a deliberate decision to move away from them.
A 2018 internal document also revealed that as of 2015, approximately 4 million children under the age of 13 had active Instagram accounts, including roughly 30% of all children aged 10 to 12 in the United States. This came despite the platform’s stated policy of prohibiting users under 13. Meta’s own research further found that parental supervision tools failed to prevent compulsive social media use among teenagers, and that teens who experienced traumatic life events were more likely to overuse the platforms.
The issue of beauty filters on Instagram was also examined in court. Meta consulted 18 external experts to assess the potential impact of these filters on young users, and all 18 raised concerns. Zuckerberg said he does not believe there is sufficient evidence to justify removing the filters and argued that doing so would restrict freedom of expression. Children’s advocacy groups criticized this position as inconsistent with the company’s own expert findings.
Meta’s legal defense has focused on the plaintiff’s personal circumstances rather than the platform’s design. Attorneys representing the company pointed to KGM’s difficult home life and medical history to argue that her mental health challenges predated and were not substantially caused by Instagram. YouTube’s defense took a similar approach, with attorneys suggesting the plaintiff used social media as a coping mechanism for pre-existing difficulties.
Outside of Los Angeles, Meta is simultaneously facing a separate trial in New Mexico brought by the state’s attorney general. That case was built by investigators posing as minors on Meta’s platforms and documenting the sexual solicitations they received, along with the company’s response to them. The New Mexico case focuses on child sexual exploitation and calls for stronger age verification measures, better removal of bad actors, and changes to how algorithms serve content to young users.
A third major trial, involving school districts from across the country, is scheduled for the summer before a federal judge in Oakland, California. That case follows the same negligence framework used in opioid litigation and argues that social media companies knowingly exposed children to addictive and harmful content while prioritizing advertising revenue over child safety.
