Los Angeles, CA – – Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended his company’s practices in a Los Angeles courtroom today, facing direct questioning regarding allegations that Instagram is designed to be addictive and harmful to young users. The landmark civil trial, which also names Google’s YouTube as a defendant, centers on claims brought by a plaintiff, identified as K.G.M., who alleges that prolonged use of social media beginning in childhood led to mental health issues.
Zuckerberg’s testimony marked his first time defending Meta before a jury, though he has previously appeared before Congress to address youth safety concerns on the company’s platforms. The stakes are particularly high in this case, as a verdict could have significant implications for similar lawsuits filed against major social media companies, potentially reshaping legal defenses against claims of user harm. TikTok and Snapchat previously settled similar claims before the trial began, with the terms of those settlements remaining undisclosed.
A key point of contention during the questioning revolved around Zuckerberg’s prior statements to Congress. The plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, presented emails from and in which Zuckerberg discussed goals to increase time spent on Instagram by double-digit percentage points. Lanier pressed Zuckerberg on whether these communications contradicted his earlier testimony to lawmakers, in which he stated the company did not explicitly set goals to maximize user engagement.
Zuckerberg responded that while Meta had previously focused on metrics related to time spent on the platform, the company’s approach had since evolved. He stated, “If you are trying to say my testimony was not accurate, I strongly disagree with that.” This exchange highlights a central argument in the case: whether Meta intentionally designed its platforms to be addictive, despite acknowledging potential risks to user well-being.
The lawsuit alleges that Instagram and YouTube utilize recommendation algorithms and infinite scrolling features to deliberately hook young users, contributing to depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. K.G.M. Began using Instagram at age nine, according to Lanier, and claims the platform fueled her mental health struggles. Meta and Google have denied these allegations, arguing that their platforms offer benefits and that any harm experienced by K.G.M. Stemmed from other factors.
Meta’s defense has included pointing to internal research and external findings that suggest a complex relationship between social media use and mental health. The company has cited a National Academies of Sciences report that found limited evidence to support a direct causal link between social media and negative mental health outcomes in children. However, investigative reporting has revealed internal Meta documents indicating awareness of potential harms. For example, a Reuters report detailed a Meta study that found teens reporting negative body image perceptions on Instagram were exposed to a significantly higher volume of content related to eating disorders.
Further complicating matters, testimony from Instagram head Adam Mosseri revealed he was unaware of a recent Meta study that found no correlation between parental supervision and teens’ attentiveness regarding their own social media use. The study reportedly indicated that teens facing difficult life circumstances were more likely to engage in habitual or unintentional Instagram use.
The trial is unfolding against a backdrop of growing global concern over the impact of social media on children’s mental health. Australia has already implemented restrictions prohibiting social media access for users under the age of 16, and Spain is considering similar measures. In the United States, Florida has enacted a law prohibiting individuals under 14 from accessing social media platforms, though this law is currently facing legal challenges from tech industry trade groups.
The outcome of this case is expected to have far-reaching consequences, potentially influencing the legal landscape for social media companies and shaping future regulations aimed at protecting young users. Thousands of similar lawsuits have been filed against Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok by families, school districts, and states, all alleging that these companies have contributed to a youth mental health crisis. The verdict in the K.G.M. Case could serve as a bellwether for these ongoing legal battles.
The trial continues, with further testimony expected in the coming days. The jury will ultimately decide whether Meta and YouTube acted responsibly in designing and operating their platforms, and whether their actions contributed to the harm experienced by K.G.M. And potentially millions of other young users.
