Mark Zuckerberg takes the stand.

Last week Meta’s CEO walked into one of the most important tech trials of the decade, facing accusations that his products are designed in ways that harm young people.​

(first published on my substack )

The case.

The Los Angeles case, brought by a 20‑year‑old woman known as KGM and her mother, alleges that Instagram’s design and recommendation systems drove a “dangerous dependency” that fuelled anxiety, depression, self‑harm and body dysmorphia.

While Snap, the parent company of TikTok and Snapchat settled the matter out of court shortly before the trial date, Meta and Google’s YouTube have chosen to contest.

It’s the first time Zuckerberg has faced a jury in a case focused squarely on whether social media is addictive for kids, rather than just how Meta’s platforms handle data or competition.​

The action.

In court, lawyers pointed to internal emails and company goals from the mid‑2010s to boost “time spent” and reverse declining teen usage, including targets to increase minutes on Instagram by double‑digit percentages.​

Zuckerberg didn’t dispute that those metrics existed, but said they’re no longer how Meta runs the business and that his past testimony about engagement was still accurate.

Zuckerberg was pressed on Meta’s claim that under‑13s are barred from Instagram by dint of the terms and conditions;

“You expect a nine‑year‑old to read all of the fine print?” KGM’s lawyer Mark Lanier.

Real harm.

Parents in the gallery and outside the courthouse weren’t interested in KPIs. They were talking about kids who spiralled.​

Some had lost children to suicide and now blame the always‑on, algorithmic feeds that keep teens doom‑scrolling long past the point where it feels good.​

Internal and external research has described teen users who feel “hooked despite how it makes them feel”, with what one report called “an addicts’ narrative” about Instagram.​

Meta’s response is that there are also documented upsides around connection and support, and that it has rolled out tools like time‑limits and quiet‑modes to curb “problematic use”.​

Australia’s line in the sand.

Of course here in Australia, from late last year, under‑16s have been officially banned from holding many social media accounts

Platforms must take “reasonable steps” to keep them out, and face penalties of up to nearly $50 million for non‑compliance.

While I’m sure many 13 year-olds are still giggling away as they sidestep the guardrails and scroll to their heart’s content, Meta says it has already blocked more than 544,000 under‑16 accounts since the ban kicked in.

That number that is both reassuring and in a way horrifying.

Reassuring, because enforcement is happening. Horrifying, because that many children were on these platforms in the first place.

Optics, Mark. Optics.

Zuckerberg, not surprisingly, arrived at court flanked by a sizeable entourage.​

But some of them were wearing Meta’s Ray‑Ban AI glasses which, of course, can surreptiously record what they see.

This prompted the judge to warn everyone not to film proceedings and to delete any footage already captured.

I’m not a PR guru, but I really would have said, “hey Mark, maybe the beefy guys walking into the courthouse with you should ditch the Meta AI Raybans?”

Hashtag optics.

Careless people.

It is the job of the judge and jury in this case to ​hear all of the facts and reach a determination and I’ll leave that to them.

But I will note, apropos of nothing the words of Sarah Wynn-Williams, a former Facebook/Meta Director of Global Public Policy now a prominent Meta whistleblower and author of the tell-all memoir Careless People.

In 2025, Wynn-Williams testified before US Senate Judiciary Committee, describing internal practices where Facebook could infer when teens, including teenage girls, felt “worthless,” “helpless,” or “like a failure”.

Facebook could then alert or enable advertisers to target those vulnerable moments. For example after a girl deleted a selfie the platform could push beauty or weight‑loss ads to her.

Given this, I find it hard to take at face value the idea that engagement was never the point.​

At the very least, this trial forces Meta and its peers to explain, under oath, whether the way they make money can be squared with the way we want our kids to grow up.

Hey I'm now also on substack.