Core claims under examination
The lawsuit asserts that Instagram’s infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations and photo-editing filters are engineered to keep minors engaged for extended periods, heightening their vulnerability to mental-health issues. Attorneys for KGM argue that Meta knew or should have known the risks yet prioritized user growth and advertising revenue.
Meta denies those assertions. Company attorney Paul Schmidt told jurors in opening statements that while KGM faced genuine psychological challenges, Instagram was not a substantial factor. He pointed to medical records indicating a turbulent home environment, suggesting the plaintiff turned to social media primarily as a coping mechanism rather than as the cause of her problems. Counsel for YouTube advanced a similar position.
An external overview of adolescent mental health resources can be found at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Earlier testimony by Instagram’s leader
Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, appeared in court one week before the expected Zuckerberg questioning. Mosseri stated that he does not believe users can be “clinically addicted” to social media in the manner alleged. He told jurors the service invests heavily in safety tools for teenagers and argued that it is “not good for the company, over the long run, to make decisions that profit for us but are poor for people’s well-being.”
Much of the exchange between Mosseri and plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier focused on Instagram’s cosmetic filters, which can alter users’ facial features and physiques. Lanier contended these filters encourage appearance-based anxiety among young people. Observers anticipate that Zuckerberg will face similar questions about the purpose and design of these features, as well as broader inquiries into algorithms that populate user feeds without an explicit endpoint.
Bellwether status and potential ripple effects
The California case is one of three chosen as bellwethers, meaning their outcomes will help guide legal strategy and potential settlements in a larger pool of lawsuits targeting social media companies. A separate Meta trial opened last week in New Mexico, creating parallel legal pressures on the company as it navigates mounting scrutiny over youth safety.
Attorneys for the plaintiff maintain that internal documents will demonstrate Meta’s awareness of potential harms. Meta, in turn, argues that research on social media’s effects is mixed and that many factors contribute to mental health outcomes.
Limited public access and anticipated proceedings
Court officials have restricted the number of seats available to the public, citing space constraints. Among those expected to attend are parents who allege that online platforms contributed to their children’s self-harm or death. The presence of grieving families underscores the high stakes for the companies involved and amplifies public interest in the trial’s outcome.
Zuckerberg’s appearance follows several years of heightened governmental and public attention to how tech companies manage content and safeguard younger audiences. Although he has faced congressional committees and regulators, a jury setting introduces new dynamics: jurors will weigh direct testimony, company documents and expert analyses before rendering a verdict.
The schedule anticipates that Zuckerberg will remain on the stand for several hours, fielding questions from both plaintiff and defense teams. Topics likely include:
- The development and deployment of engagement-driven algorithms.
- Internal assessments of product impact on minors.
- Business incentives tied to time-spent metrics.
- Measures introduced to mitigate potential harm, such as content filters and usage-time tools.
A Meta spokesperson reiterated the company’s position that it has “a longstanding commitment to supporting young people” and expressed confidence that the evidentiary record would ultimately favor the defense. Google has issued similar statements regarding YouTube’s role in the case.
Context of prior settlements
TikTok and Snap’s decisions to settle withdrew two major platforms from the proceeding, narrowing the current focus to Meta and Google. Settlement terms were not disclosed in court filings, leaving open questions about financial or operational concessions those companies may have agreed to undertake.
The trial’s bellwether designation means that its findings—whether they uphold or dismiss the plaintiff’s claims—could become a reference point for judges overseeing related litigation nationwide. Depending on the verdict, companies may be motivated either to contest future lawsuits more aggressively or to pursue broad settlement frameworks.
Next steps
Following Zuckerberg’s appearance, the court will continue hearing expert testimony and cross-examinations. Closing arguments are expected in the coming weeks, after which jurors will deliberate on liability and, if applicable, damages. Any decision could be appealed, potentially extending the legal battle for months or years.
The outcome will be closely monitored by industry executives, policymakers and advocacy groups as they assess how U.S. courts interpret the responsibility of social media firms toward younger users and the boundaries of product-design liability.
Crédito da imagem: AP
