Mark Zuckerberg testifies in L.A. trial over social media addiction

Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg made a lengthy and pugnacious appearance in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Wednesday, defending his company on the witness stand against a lawsuit alleging that social media harms children.

Meta’s boss appeared in a dark suit and gray tie, his signature brown curls slightly tousled, occasionally casting nervous glances at the jury and the 20-year-old plaintiff, seated in the courtroom gallery.

“I’m not – I think I’m actually known for being very bad at this,” Zuckerberg told the young woman’s lawyer, Mark Lanier, when asked about the professionalism of his testimony.

In a dramatic moment late in the morning, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl sharply warned anyone in the courtroom against wearing Meta’s AI glasses.

“If your glasses are recording, you have to take them off,” the judge said. “It is the order of this court that there shall be no facial recognition of the jury. If you did that, you must delete it. It’s very serious.

This warning was met with silence in the courtroom.

Simply bringing Zuckerberg to the stand Wednesday was a coup for the plaintiffs and a liability for his company’s platforms, which now must contend with deep public disgust for the Meta figurehead.

According to a study conducted last year by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, the overwhelming majority of American adults have an unfavorable opinion of Zuckerberg.

The percentage of adults who view it very favorably is comparable to those who think the Earth is flat or that aliens live among us.

“It’s a very big deal,” said Jenny Kim, an attorney in a related lawsuit. “The whole world comes to watch it.”

Crowds filled the square in front of the Spring Street courthouse in Downtown on Wednesday, with lines stretching out the door to enter the building, where many had waited for hours just to get a glimpse of the CEO.

The plaintiff, a Chico, Calif., woman known as Kaley GM, appeared in the courtroom for the first time since she was briefly introduced during opening statements on Feb. 9.

His lawsuit is one test case chosen from hundreds alleging that Instagram and YouTube were designed to trap young users and keep them hooked on their services. Two other defendants, TikTok and Snap, settled out of court.

Zuckerberg said children under 13 have never been allowed on the platform. Kaley stated in her claim that she started using Instagram when she was 9 years old.

“I generally think there is a set of people, potentially a significant number of people, who are lying about their age in order to use our services,” he said. “There is a separate and very important question regarding law enforcement, and it is very difficult.”

Lanier showed a 2018 internal document suggesting that Instagram estimated that about 4 million users were under 13, or about 30% of all 10- to 12-year-olds in the United States at the time.

“There’s a difference between whether someone is allowed to do something and whether we arrested them for breaking the rule,” Zuckerberg said in response to repeated questions. “I don’t see why it’s so complicated. Our policy is clear: people under 13 are not allowed.”

Meta’s lawyers have thus far sought to discredit the idea of ​​social media addiction, while casting doubt on whether Kaley actually has it.

Zuckerberg’s personal sympathy does not matter in the case, the company said.

“The question before the Los Angeles jury is whether Instagram played a significant role in the plaintiff’s mental health issues,” Meta spokeswoman Stephanie Otway said. “The evidence will show that she faced many significant and difficult challenges long before she used social media.”

Parents and family members embrace before entering Los Angeles County Superior Court on Wednesday for a civil trial over a lawsuit that claims social media giants deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive in children.

(Frédéric J. Brown / AFP / Getty Images)

Whatever the outcome of the trial, Zuckerberg’s testimony could complicate Meta’s image and political ambitions, experts say.

“Just his appearance on the stand illustrates how much public opinion has changed,” said David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University who studies technology in politics. “This has significant impacts on Meta and big tech’s influence on California politics.”

Indeed, the CEO speaks up as Meta redoubles his efforts to influence Golden State’s affairs.

The company has long been a key player in state and local elections, investing millions in ballot measures, the state Legislature and California gubernatorial candidates. He regularly distributes money to both camps and to opponents in the same race.

Last year, the company invested $20 million in a new state super PAC — Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across (Meta) California — in preparation for key 2026 races.

He also pledged $50 million in a joint project with Sacramento State University to redevelop the Capital Mall.

“They’ve become a lot more offensive with their money,” McCuan said. “They’re not just blocking legislation, they’re more actively trying to change their image.

That could backfire, he and others said.

“Voters are pretty unhappy as the midterm elections approach,” the expert said. “This comes at a time when consumers, users, voters are ready to throw the book on someone or something. Now you have someone who could capture that anger.”

“When you think about how Meta uses Meta money, it’s Mark Zuckerberg’s slush fund to play in California or national politics,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, a watchdog group.

A media camp is set up outside the downtown Los Angeles courthouse, where Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg was testifying Wednesday.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

At the same time that Meta was increasing his political spending, Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, were aggressively redirecting their charitable giving toward artificial intelligence and scientific research.

“I’m committed to giving almost all of my money to charity and I’m focused on donating billions of dollars to scientific research. So the better Meta does, the more we’ll be able to do this kind of research,” he told Lanier when pressed about his personal stake in the company.

The judge, in a parallel federal trial, has already ruled that Zuckerberg cannot face personal liability, putting his estimated $220 billion fortune beyond the reach of thousands of plaintiffs.

” Most [my] Meta shares belong to the CZI organization,” the CEO told the jury. “We invest in scientific research and other charitable causes.”