Mark Zuckerberg has been testifying under oath in Los Angeles for days in what is already considered the largest trial in history against a social network. Each session leaves uncomfortable headlines for Meta.
What is Happening
A court in Los Angeles is evaluating whether Instagram is a platform intentionally designed to hook minors. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old identified as KGM, alleges that her addiction to Instagram began when she was just nine years old, resulting in severely detrimental effects on her mental health during adolescence.
This is not an isolated incident; behind this trial, there are over 1,600 additional plaintiffs—hundreds of families and more than 250 school districts—who have lodged similar complaints against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. The latter two reached financial agreements prior to the trial, leaving Meta and Google still facing legal challenges.
Comparisons to Tobacco
The most frequently drawn parallel in American media is that of tobacco companies in the 1990s. These companies, which concealed the harmful effects of their products, faced accountability decades later in court. The current accusations suggest that Meta intentionally designed features like infinite scrolling, ‘likes’, and push notifications to maximize user engagement, including minors. In this context, internal company documents have emerged as crucial evidence in the trial.
What the Documents Say
During cross-examination, plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier presented a range of emails and internal messages from Meta that were striking. One email from a company researcher described Instagram as “a drug… we are basically traffickers.” Another document from 2018 revealed that in 2015, around four million users under 13 were on Instagram, constituting nearly 30% of all American children aged 10 to 12. This contradicts Zuckerberg’s previous statements to Congress denying access to minors under that age.
Where the Testimony Squeaks
Zuckerberg maintained that Meta never aimed to maximize the time users spent on the platform, asserting a focus on long-term “value” and “utility.” However, the prosecution presented emails from 2013 to 2022 indicating that increasing screen time was explicitly an internal goal. Additionally, documents from Instagram’s director, Adam Mosseri, set targets for daily usage—40 minutes in 2023 and 46 minutes in 2026—while Zuckerberg claimed these were merely “milestones” rather than goals.
Discussion on Filters
Another tense point in the testimony revolved around Instagram filters. In 2019, Meta suspended these filters temporarily to assess their effects. Eighteen experts consulted by the company concluded that these filters could lead to well-being issues, especially among adolescents, with links to body dysmorphia. Despite the warnings, Zuckerberg lifted the suspension, expressing a preference for allowing self-expression over what he deemed “paternalistic” restrictions.
The prosecution also revealed an email from Margaret Stewart, then vice president of product design at Meta, stating her concerns about Zuckerberg’s decision, indicating it was not the right choice given the associated risks.
Between the Lines
This trial presents a significant challenge for Meta, not solely due to Zuckerberg’s testimony, but because of the contradictions emerging from internal documents and communications. The accusations aim to illustrate that the company was aware of the risks, had internal discussions surrounding these matters, yet still prioritized growth over user safety.
What is at Stake?
An unfavorable ruling in Los Angeles could bring substantial financial consequences for Meta and set a precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits currently pending in courts nationwide, and possibly globally. Similar cases are already scheduled for the summer in Northern California, focusing on impacts on schools, as well as an ongoing trial in New Mexico where the state attorney general accuses Meta of not adequately protecting minors from sexual predators on its platforms.
“For the first time, Meta’s CEO will have to sit before a jury, under oath, and explain why the company launched a product that its own safety teams warned was addictive and harmful to children,” stated Matt Bergman, an attorney representing numerous plaintiffs.
And Now What?
The trial is expected to continue until the end of March. As reported by Bloomberg, Meta maintains its defense on two fronts: asserting that no scientific evidence proves social networks are addictive and invoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which exempts them from accountability for user-generated content. However, the prosecution counters that their case centers not on content but on the intentional decisions made regarding the app’s design.
Cover image | Solen Feyissa and Wikimedia Commons
In Xataka | TikTok’s infinite scroll has just entered the EU’s crosshairs: Brussels marks it as “addictive design” and demands changes.