Listen to this article5 mins
info
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand in a Los Angeles court in the United States as part of a landmark trial examining Instagram’s impact on the mental health of its young users.
While on the stand on Wednesday, Zuckerberg pushed back on allegations made by Mark Lanier, the lawyer for the woman who has accused Meta of harming her mental health while she was a child.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The case revolves around the story of a woman identified as KGM, who began using YouTube and Instagram in her childhood. She alleges that those apps fueled suicidal thoughts and depression.
Lanier alleged that Zuckerberg misled Congress about the design of its social media platforms.
Zuckerberg was questioned on his statements to the US Congress in 2024, during a hearing in which he said the company did not give its teams the goal of maximising time spent on its apps.
Lanier showed jurors emails from 2014 and 2015 in which Zuckerberg laid out aims to increase time spent on the app by double-digit percentage points. Zuckerberg said that while Meta previously had goals related to the amount of time users spent on the app, it has since changed its approach.
“If you are trying to say my testimony was not accurate, I strongly disagree with that,” Zuckerberg said.
High stakes
The stakes are higher at the jury trial. Meta may have to pay damages if it loses the case, and the verdict could erode Big Tech’s longstanding legal defence against claims of user harm that liability is on the user and not the platform.
TikTok and Snap, who were previously named in the case, reached a settlement. TikTok settled the same day the case began for undisclosed terms. Snap settled a week before, also for undisclosed terms.
The case is the first among a slew of similar ones that allege that social media platforms designed features that the companies knew would addict young consumers and affect their mental health. Families, school districts and states around the US have filed roughly 1,600 lawsuits against various social media giants, including Meta, TikTok, Google and Snap.
“The outcome will help determine how to handle the remaining cases. The jury’s decisions will provide guidance,” Tre Lovell, a Los Angeles-based media law and entertainment lawyer told Al Jazeera.
“If the plaintiffs lose and the defendants successfully argue that the platforms are not products, that there is no causation, or that the algorithms had nothing to do with the alleged harm, and that the plaintiffs’ own circumstances are responsible, then Meta and Google’s YouTube will likely take a firmer stance in the remaining cases.”
Meta has denied the allegations made by KGM.
“We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people,” a spokesperson for Meta said in a statement to Al Jazeera.
“For over a decade, we’ve listened to parents, worked with experts and law enforcement, and conducted in-depth research to understand the issues that matter most.”
Meta introduced new safety features in 2025, including, in April, blocking teens under 16 from going live on Instagram. In September, the company launched a school partnership programme that gives educators expedited review of complaints, such as cyberbullying.
Zuckerberg’s testimony follows Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, who appeared in front of the court last week. He said he was unaware of an internal Meta study that showed that there is no link between parental supervision and teens’ attentiveness to their own social media use.
Teens with difficult life circumstances more often said they used Instagram habitually or unintentionally, according to the document shown at trial.
Paul Schmidt, one of Meta’s lawyers, did not dispute KGM’s mental health challenges, but argued that Instagram was not a substantial factor in her struggles. He attributed her difficulties to problems at home and said she used social media as a coping mechanism for deeper personal issues.
Wide ramifications
The case itself is seen as one that could fundamentally change social media, with legal experts likening it to lawsuits that faced the tobacco industry decades ago.
Social media platforms have largely been protected by Section 230, a provision added in 1996 to the Communications Act of 1934. The law protects internet companies from liability for content posted by users on their platforms.
But this latest case emboldens critics calling for reforms, according to Lovell.
“Lawmakers may need to carve out greater obligations and duties for internet and social media companies rather than maintain blanket immunity,” Lovell said.
“With the rise of artificial intelligence and ongoing online abuse, Section 230 has become an enabler for those who want to harm others. Guardrails are needed.”
On Wall Street, Meta stock ended the day up 0.61 percent, but is down in after-hours trading at the time of publishing.
