In a packed courtroom in Los Angeles, Mark Zuckerberg took the witness stand and pushed back against a central accusation: that Meta Platforms built Instagram with children in mind.
The trial, unfolding before a jury in California, zeroes in on claims that Instagram — along with YouTube, owned by Google — harmed a woman who began using the platforms as a child. She argues the companies engineered their apps to keep young users hooked, aggravating her depression and suicidal thoughts. The tech giants deny the charge.
On the stand, Zuckerberg repeated a line he has delivered before Congress: children under 13 are not permitted on Meta’s platforms. But lawyers for the plaintiff presented internal company documents suggesting that “tweens” were discussed as a growth segment. One 2018 presentation included the line: “If we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.”
Zuckerberg insisted the documents were being misread. He acknowledged that teams had explored ideas for age-appropriate products — including a version of Instagram for younger children — but said such a product was never launched.
The courtroom exchanges also drifted into a broader debate about responsibility. An internal email from former Meta executive Nick Clegg flagged concerns about unenforced age limits and inconsistent policies across platforms. Zuckerberg responded that verifying age online is notoriously difficult and suggested device manufacturers should bear more of that burden. He testified that teenage users account for less than 1% of Instagram’s revenue.
Another flashpoint: screen time.
Lawyers confronted Zuckerberg with older emails in which he encouraged teams to boost user engagement by double-digit percentages. He acknowledged that earlier strategies included explicit goals to increase time spent on the app, but maintained that Meta’s philosophy has since shifted toward improving user experience rather than chasing raw minutes.
Jurors were shown a 2022 planning document outlining “milestones” that projected daily usage rising from 40 minutes to 46 minutes over several years. Zuckerberg described those figures as internal benchmarks — a “gut check” — rather than marching orders.
The trial marks the first time Zuckerberg has testified in court specifically about Instagram’s impact on young users’ mental health. Outside the courthouse, lawyers representing other families pursuing similar claims said the testimony itself was a milestone in a broader reckoning for the industry.
This case is one of thousands filed across the United States accusing social media companies of intensifying a youth mental health crisis. While companies have long relied on legal protections shielding them from liability over user-generated content, these lawsuits target product design — algorithms, notifications and engagement mechanics.
Some rivals have chosen to step aside. Snap Inc. and TikTok settled with the plaintiff before the trial began.
Meanwhile, policymakers worldwide are tightening the screws. Australia has barred social media access for users under 16. In the U.S., Florida has prohibited platforms from admitting users under 14 — a move now facing legal challenges.
At the heart of the Los Angeles trial lies a question larger than one user’s experience: when does design become damage? The jury’s answer could ripple far beyond Silicon Valley.
