Mark Zuckerberg has sat before a jury for the first time to answer directly for the Instagram's impact on the mental health of minorsIn a case being closely watched by governments and regulators worldwide, the trial, taking place in Los Angeles Superior Court, examines whether the social media platform contributed to the addiction and psychological deterioration of a young woman who is now 20 years old.
The case has become a Historical assessment of adolescent addiction to social mediaThis has potential implications for thousands of similar lawsuits. Under intense media scrutiny, Meta's CEO has argued that Instagram is "valuable, not harmful" and has rejected claims that the platform is designed to deliberately ensnare young people.
Zuckerberg before the jury: staunch defense of Instagram
During several hours of questioning, Zuckerberg was asked whether Meta prioritized growth and usage time above the protection of minors. The executive insisted that the company's goal is to create useful services so that people can stay in touch with family and friends and learn about the world, not to maximize screen time "at any cost."
The lawyers for the plaintiff, identified as Kaley or KGM, showed her internal emails from 2014 and 2015 These tests set goals to increase time spent on apps and "reverse the teenage trend." Faced with this evidence, Zuckerberg acknowledged that in earlier stages of the company, goals related to usage time were indeed set, but maintained that this approach "no longer reflects Meta's current philosophy."
In one of those messages, the Facebook founder spoke of getting users to spend about 10-12% more time on the platform. The plaintiff's lawyer emphasized that, at the time, his client was only nine or ten years old and was already using Instagram, which, in his opinion, demonstrates that the company benefited from that early hyperconnectivity.
The exchange was especially tense when the lawyer compared those strategies to the way other industries have historically encouraged compulsive consumption, asking whether Should a “reasonable” company take advantage of vulnerable people?Zuckerberg countered that a responsible company “should try to help the people who use its services,” not exploit them.
Children under 13 years of age, age verification and responsibilities
One of the most delicate points of the process is the massive presence of children under 13 on InstagramDespite the fact that the terms of service expressly prohibit access for that age group, Zuckerberg emphasized before the court that children under 13 have "never been allowed" to use the social network and that the company's policy "has always been clear."
However, he acknowledged that “a significant number of people lie about their age” to access the platforms and admitted that Meta was slow to perfect its systems for detecting and excluding such users. The young woman's lawyers countered with internal data: by 2018, some Four million Instagram users would be under 13 years old, approximately 30% of children between the ages of 10 and 12 in the United States, according to figures cited in the courtroom.
During the proceedings, documents from 2015 were presented indicating that the 30% of children aged 10 to 12 In that country, they were already using Instagram, as well as internal reports that explicitly mentioned the need to recruit "pre-teens" to succeed among teenagers. The prosecution interprets these texts as evidence of a deliberate strategy to attract minors, despite the official age restriction.
Zuckerberg, for his part, claimed not to recall the specific context of several of those documents “from more than ten years ago” and defended the company's significant technical resources dedicated to detecting and disabling minors' accounts, although he admitted that Checking the real age is “very difficult” when it is based on information provided by the users themselves.
The plaintiff's lawyers asked him somewhat ironically if he really expected a nine-year-old to read the fine print to understand the access rules. The executive responded in short sentences and asserted that he didn't see "why it's so complicated" to require people to tell the truth about their age, which generated murmurs among the public in the courtroom.
Addictive features: infinite scrolling, algorithms, and beauty filters
The technical core of the trial focuses on whether the same design as Instagram and other networks It's designed to be addictive, regardless of the specific content each user views. The lawsuit describes an ecosystem of features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, personalized recommendation systems, and constant notifications, which, combined, compel users to stay connected.
The prosecution argues that these mechanisms They foster clearly addictive dynamicsto the point of comparing them to the response caused by a “chemical shock.” Lawyers argue that the algorithms learn precisely what to show each young person to keep them on the app longer, leading to patterns of compulsive use, with consequences ranging from anxiety and depression to harassment or, in extreme cases, suicide.
Especially controversial are the beauty filters and editing tools that alter faces and bodies, even simulating the results of cosmetic surgery or unrealistic body proportions. Studies cited in the case, some commissioned by Meta itself, link these functions to body image problems, especially among teenage girls, and to an increase in body dysmorphia.
Zuckerberg acknowledged that there were internal debates within the company about the potential harmful effects of these filters, but explained that they opted for a middle ground: not to ban them, but to allow users who wanted to use them to do so, theoretically avoiding actively recommending them. In his view, completely restricting these types of tools requires “very clear evidence that things will go wrong”, and argued that Meta did not have “solid” data demonstrating direct causal harm.
Meanwhile, figures like Adam Mosseri, Instagram's CEO, have acknowledged that the platform can lead to "problematic use," but deny the existence of a clinically recognized addiction to social media. Mosseri compared this excessive use to "watching television longer than makes you feel good," downplaying the idea of an addictive pattern comparable to that of substances or gambling.
The Kaley/KGM case and its impact on mental health
The lawsuit that has brought Zuckerberg to the stand is part of the story of Kaley, identified as KGMA young Californian woman who started using YouTube at age six, Instagram at nine, TikTok (then Musical.ly) at ten, and Snapchat at eleven. Her family describes an escalating dependence from childhood: if they took away her phone, she suffered panic attacks and was unable to "live without a phone" without triggering episodes of aggression.
According to court documents, the young woman had gone through anxiety, depression and body dysmorphiaAnd her mother maintains that her social media addiction “has changed the way her brain works,” to the point of affecting her long-term memory and her ability to lead a daily life without the device. On one occasion, she reportedly spent up to 16 hours a day on Instagram, a figure that even Mosseri described as “problematic use.”
Kaley's lawyers argue that the platforms not only allow, but are specifically designed to encourage, such extreme persistence. They assert that Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snap were aware of the risks. for the mental health of young people, but they still continued to implement addictive features and strategies to attract increasingly younger users.
Meta and Google's defense, on the other hand, maintains that the plaintiff's problems have prior roots in her family environment and difficult personal experiences, and that social media cannot be considered the determining cause of her situation. Spokespeople for both companies emphasize that they offer tools such as parental controls, time limits and child detection systems, and that prioritize the safety of adolescents.
In this specific case, TikTok and Snap have been excluded from the trial after reaching confidential agreements with the plaintiff shortly before the start of the hearings. Meta and Google, meanwhile, face the possibility of multimillion-dollar damages if the jury concludes that their platforms significantly contributed to the deterioration of the young woman's mental health.
A trial with global implications for the technology industry
Beyond this specific lawsuit, the Los Angeles case is considered a reference case for approximately 1.500 similar claims against major tech companies in the United States, promoted by individuals, schools, and local governments. They all revolve around the same idea: that social media has contributed to a mental health crisis among children and teenagers.
The trial comes at a time when the US and European governments are debating new rules to force platforms to be accountable for the design of their servicesIn the European Union, for example, the Digital Services Regulation (DSA) already introduces stricter obligations regarding algorithmic transparency, content moderation and the protection of minors, although it remains to be seen how it will be applied in practice to cases such as Instagram.
International organizations and research centers have warned that the relationship between social media use and mental health is complex and not always linear, but they agree that there is a particularly vulnerable group of young users for whom the design of these platforms can amplify pre-existing problems. In this context, the outcome of the trial could determine the extent to which this vulnerability is exacerbated. The courts are prepared to assign direct responsibility. to the companies for those effects.
For Meta, the case also comes at a time when Zuckerberg's reputation is in question: surveys like those from the Pew Research Center show that a majority of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the executive. His appearance, escorted by a heavy security detail and in a room filled with parents who have lost children to problems related to social media, symbolizes the growing social pressure on the major platforms.
The impact of what is happening in Los Angeles is not limited to the United States. In Europe, where the debate is growing about limiting minors' access to networksTo strengthen age verification and restrict certain addictive features, regulators are closely watching a process that can serve as a guide—or a warning—for future legislative and judicial decisions.
It remains to be seen how the jury will assess the internal documents, management emails, and studies on the effects on mental health versus the defense presented by Meta and Google, who insist on the social value of their products and the security improvements they have made. What does seem clear is that, whoever wins in this courtroom, the debate about social media, teenage addiction, and corporate responsibility It has entered a phase in which it is no longer fought only in law firms or parliamentary committees, but also in the courts, with potential consequences for the entire technology industry on both sides of the Atlantic.
