Parents Seek Answers as Zuckerberg Testifies in Youth Harm Case
LOS ANGELES — In a courtroom packed with attorneys, reporters and families clutching photographs of their children, Mark Zuckerberg is set to testify in a case many parents view as a long-awaited moment of reckoning for social media companies.
The trial, unfolding in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is the first to move forward from a consolidated group of more than 1,600 lawsuits filed across the country. More than 350 families and over 250 school districts have joined the legal fight, alleging that some of the world’s largest tech platforms knowingly created products that harmed young users’ mental health. At the center of the case are claims against Meta — the parent company of Instagram — as well as other social media giants.
For the families seated in the gallery, the proceedings are not simply about corporate policy or legal precedent. They are about understanding what company leaders knew about the risks to children — and when.
The lead plaintiff in this Los Angeles trial is a 20-year-old woman identified in court as K.G.M., who was a minor during the period described in her complaint. She alleges that her early and sustained exposure to social media platforms contributed to compulsive use patterns and intensified existing mental health struggles. Her lawsuit argues that companies deliberately built features designed to maximize engagement among young users, even as internal research allegedly raised concerns about potential harm.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs say the case focuses not on user-generated content but on the underlying architecture of the platforms — the recommendation algorithms, endless scrolling interfaces, push notifications and other design choices that encourage prolonged use. They contend that these features were developed with growth and advertising revenue in mind, without sufficient regard for how they might affect adolescents.
“This is about accountability,” said Matt Bergman, founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center, which represents hundreds of plaintiffs in related proceedings. “Families have waited years for this opportunity to hear executives answer questions under oath.”
Zuckerberg’s appearance follows testimony from Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, who defended the platform’s approach to user engagement last week. Mosseri told jurors that while some users may develop unhealthy relationships with social media, that does not equate to clinical addiction engineered by design. He emphasized the distinction between problematic use and medically recognized addiction, arguing that the company has implemented tools intended to promote safer experiences.
Meta has consistently denied that its platforms are intentionally built to exploit young users. Company representatives point to parental controls, time management reminders and content moderation investments as evidence of ongoing safety efforts. They argue that social media, like many technologies, can be used responsibly or irresponsibly, and that responsibility ultimately lies with individuals and families.
Still, the plaintiffs’ legal strategy seeks to test the limits of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, a long-standing federal provision that shields internet platforms from liability for content posted by users. Historically, Section 230 has served as a powerful defense for tech companies facing lawsuits tied to online harm. However, attorneys for the families argue that their claims hinge on product design decisions — not on third-party content — and therefore fall outside the scope of that protection.
The stakes extend beyond Meta. Although TikTok and Snap reached settlements with the lead plaintiff before trial, both remain defendants in other lawsuits expected to proceed later this year. Google, whose YouTube platform is also named in related litigation, faces similar allegations about algorithmic amplification and youth engagement.
Legal experts say the outcome of this bellwether trial could influence how courts handle dozens — if not hundreds — of similar cases nationwide. A verdict finding that social media companies bear responsibility for design-related harm could narrow the broad legal protections they have long relied upon. Conversely, a ruling in favor of Meta might reinforce existing precedent and make future claims more difficult to pursue.
Outside the courthouse, the emotional weight of the trial has been unmistakable. Parents have gathered holding framed photos of children they say suffered severe anxiety, depression or self-harm linked to heavy social media use. Some describe years of frustration trying to obtain transparency from the platforms their children used daily.
For them, Zuckerberg’s testimony represents more than corporate defense. It is an opportunity to press for answers directly from the executive who has overseen one of the most influential social media empires in the world.
Over the coming weeks, jurors will hear expert testimony on adolescent brain development, digital design strategies and the psychology of engagement. They will be asked to consider whether features common across the industry are simply competitive innovations — or whether they cross a line into reckless disregard for youth well-being.
As the trial unfolds, it underscores a broader national debate about technology’s role in young people’s lives. Social media has become deeply embedded in modern adolescence, shaping how teens communicate, learn and see themselves. At the same time, rising rates of reported mental health struggles among youth have intensified scrutiny of digital platforms.
For the families at the heart of this case, the legal arguments are secondary to a simpler question: Did corporate leaders understand the risks, and did they act responsibly in the face of them?
When Zuckerberg takes the stand, parents hope that question will finally be addressed — not in press statements or policy blogs, but under oath, before a jury.
DC Universe Hijacked by AI? Warner Bros. Sounds the Alarm | Maya
