Mark Zuckerberg faces intense questioning over social media addiction claims during landmark Meta trial inside packed federal courtroom

It wasn’t just another tech hearing in Washington.

On Wednesday, inside a packed courtroom, Mark Zuckerberg — the co-founder and CEO of Meta Platforms — found himself fielding pointed questions not from lawmakers, but in front of a jury.

The setting alone made this different.

Zuckerberg has sat through tense congressional hearings before. He has apologized to families.

He has defended his company’s practices under oath.

But this time, the stakes felt more personal — and more unpredictable.

For the first time, he stood before a jury in a case that could shape thousands of lawsuits against social media companies.

The Lawsuit at the Center of It All

The case was brought by a young woman identified only as KGM.

Now 20, she filed her lawsuit in 2023, arguing that her early exposure to Instagram and other platforms worsened depression and suicidal thoughts.

She claims the products were designed in ways that fueled dependency.

Her lawsuit names Meta and YouTube — owned by Google — as defendants.

Other companies, including TikTok and Snap, have already settled.

Meta’s legal team isn’t disputing that KGM struggled with mental health challenges.

Instead, they argue Instagram wasn’t a substantial cause.

In opening statements, defense attorney Paul Schmidt pointed to medical records referencing a turbulent home life.

The company’s position: she used social media as a coping mechanism — not the source of her pain.

The “Robotic” Question

One of the more unusual moments came when KGM’s attorney, Mark Lanier, confronted Zuckerberg about how he presents himself.

Lanier suggested his answers felt rehearsed — media-trained.

He even referenced an internal Meta document that encouraged Zuckerberg to appear “authentic, direct, human, insightful and real,” while avoiding coming across as “robotic” or “corporate.”

Zuckerberg brushed it off. He said the feedback was just that — feedback — not coaching.

Then, in a self-aware aside, he admitted: “I think I’m actually well known to be sort of bad at this.”

That line landed because it’s not the first time Zuckerberg’s public appearances have sparked online commentary.

Back in 2010 at the D: All Things Digital conference, he famously began sweating during a live interview with tech journalists Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg.

He ultimately peeled off his hoodie mid-interview — a rare crack in his carefully managed persona.

And who could forget his 2017 backyard livestream on Facebook, where he enthusiastically discussed “smoking meats” and Sweet Baby Ray’s barbecue sauce? The internet had a field day, slicing the clip into memes and labeling him awkward and robotic all over again.

Is Social Media Built to Be Addictive?

But the heart of the trial wasn’t about tone — it was about addiction.

Lanier pressed Zuckerberg directly: If something is addictive, don’t people use it more?

Zuckerberg hesitated. “I’m not sure what to say to that,” he replied, eventually adding, “I don’t think that applies here.”

He also stood by an earlier claim that scientific evidence has not conclusively proven social media causes mental health harm.

That position reflects Meta’s long-running defense — that correlation is not causation.

Yet the broader debate is far from settled.

Internal documents revealed by whistleblower Frances Haugen in 2021 showed Meta’s own researchers had found links between Instagram use and body image issues among teen girls.

That revelation continues to cast a long shadow over Meta’s public statements.

Time Spent and Company Goals

A major flashpoint involved Instagram’s internal metrics.

In a previous congressional hearing, Zuckerberg said Instagram employees were not given goals to increase time spent on the platform.

Lanier presented internal documents that appeared to suggest otherwise.

Zuckerberg responded by clarifying that time-based goals may have existed in the past, but the company shifted focus toward what he described as “utility.”

His philosophy, he said, is simple: if something is valuable, people will naturally use it more.

Critics argue that framing conveniently sidesteps how algorithmic design works — how infinite scroll, push notifications, and recommendation systems are engineered to maximize engagement.

Beauty Filters and the Youth Question

Another tense exchange centered on cosmetic filters — particularly those critics say promote unrealistic beauty standards.

Zuckerberg said there wasn’t enough evidence proving such filters cause harm and emphasized that he maintains a “high bar” before blocking tools that limit user expression.

Lanier countered by pointing to external experts consulted by Meta — all 18 of whom reportedly raised concerns.

Outside the courtroom, children’s advocates weren’t buying Zuckerberg’s testimony.

Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay, accused the CEO of being disingenuous and said Meta has consistently resisted removing features that critics describe as inherently addictive, including visible “like” counts and appearance-altering filters.

Age Restrictions Under Scrutiny

The discussion also veered into age verification.

Meta’s policy restricts users under 13. Zuckerberg said the company works to detect those who lie about their age to bypass the rules.

“I don’t see why this is so complicated,” he remarked during one prolonged back-and-forth.

But regulators worldwide increasingly disagree that it’s simple.

Lawmakers in several states and countries are pushing for stricter age-verification requirements and parental controls, reflecting mounting pressure on platforms to do more.

Apologies — and Their Limits

This isn’t Zuckerberg’s first time facing grieving parents.

In 2024, during congressional testimony, he apologized to families who believed social media contributed to tragedies involving their children.

“I’m sorry for everything you have all been through,” he told them.

But he stopped short of accepting direct responsibility — a distinction that matters legally.

In this latest trial, bereaved parents again filled seats in the courtroom gallery, underscoring how deeply personal these cases have become.

Why This Case Matters So Much

KGM’s lawsuit is one of three chosen as bellwether trials — test cases designed to signal how thousands of similar claims might unfold.

If the jury finds Meta liable, the ripple effects could be massive.

If the company prevails, it may strengthen tech firms’ defenses against claims that their platforms are inherently harmful.

Either way, the outcome won’t just affect one young woman.

It could redefine how courts interpret responsibility in the digital age.

What’s Next?

The trial is expected to continue with expert testimony digging deeper into psychological research, internal product design decisions, and Meta’s safety protocols.

A verdict could take weeks — or longer — but its impact will likely stretch for years.

Lawmakers are watching closely. So are parents.

So are other tech executives who know they could be next.

And for Zuckerberg, this jury — not Congress, not investors, not social media users — will decide how convincing his defense truly is.

Summary

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg faced tough questioning in a landmark social media addiction trial brought by a young woman identified as KGM.

He defended Meta’s platforms, denied that they are designed to be addictive, and rejected claims that Instagram substantially contributed to the plaintiff’s mental health struggles.

The case, one of several bellwether trials, could shape thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies.

While Zuckerberg maintained that scientific evidence does not prove social media causes mental health harm, critics and children’s advocates argue internal documents and platform features tell a different story.

The jury’s decision may have far-reaching consequences for the tech industry and the future regulation of social media platforms.