Social media trial shows Meta’s child safety promises were hollow words

Wednesday was a historic day Mark Zuckerberg He took the stand and faced a jury under oath to answer allegations that Meta intentionally designed and promoted products that would appeal to young users — including children — despite internal warnings about the risks, marking the first time he had testified before a jury in such a case.

While Zuckerberg’s testimony was frequently characterized by dodging and dodging questions — so much so that the judge ordered him to answer directly — he couldn’t talk his way out of it. The evidence in this social media trial speaks for itself.

Plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, focused on three main themes in his questioning: 1) Addicting users; 2) Allow minor users to access the Platform; and 3) making business decisions that put profits over safety.

Zuckerberg received an email in 2015 in which the CEO stated that his goal for 2016 was to increase the time users spent on the platform by 12%. Zuckerberg argued that Meta’s growth goals reflect the goal of giving users something useful, not addictive, and stated that the company is not seeking to attract children as users.

Nearly two-thirds of American voters support social media bans for children under 16, Fox News poll shows.

When asked if he thought people would tend to use something more if it was addictive, he rejected that hypothesis. “I don’t think that applies here,” he added.

But it definitely applies. Meta’s entire business model is based on user engagement. Social media seems “free,” but a child’s time, attention, and data are the product being sold. More hours of eyes glued to the screen means more ads to sell. The user is the product. The incentive is to keep users as engaged as possible.

As he confirmed Earlier in the trial By addiction expert Dr. Anna Lembke of Stanford University Social media meets the clinical criteria for addiction, according to her expert testimony.

After Australia passed a social media ban, lawmakers questioned why Congress wasn’t doing more to protect children

Lanier also questioned Zuckerberg extensively about Meta’s age verification policies. He showed an internal introductory email from 2015 that estimated 4 million Children under 13 They were using Instagram — nearly 30% of American kids ages 10 to 12. One in three teens.

Zuckerberg said the company removes identified underage users and includes terms about age requirements during the sign-up process. Lanier responded: “Do you expect a 9-year-old to read all print? That’s the basis for swearing under oath that children under 13 are not allowed?”

Zuckerberg added that some children “lie about their age in order to use services.” During this exchange, he also said, “I don’t see why this is so complicated… We have rules, and people broadly understand that.”

AI companions reshape teens’ emotional connections

Waving one’s hand and saying “we have rules” is not a sufficient defense. These are minors. It is the company’s responsibility to ensure the safety of the platform Effectively age gates; Otherwise, its stated age policy is meaningless.

In practice, age verification on most social media platforms is largely based on self-reported dates of birth. A child can enter a false age, click to accept the terms and conditions and access it within minutes. Critics say that without meaningful safeguards, age restrictions are little more than an honor system.

Age of access is a major issue In this trial. Plaintiff, KGM, who sued Instagram at the age of nineShe claims her social media use as a child and teenager led to body dysmorphia, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, addiction, and depression. Her age when she started using the app — during a period of significant brain development between the ages of 10 and 12 — is central to the damages she claims.

Australia removes 4.7 million children from social media platforms in the first month of the historic ban

The plaintiff says Instagram should never have allowed her access to the platform at the age of nine. It remains to be seen whether the jury will ultimately agree, but the case places the responsibility for those decisions squarely on Meta’s leadership.

Lanier ended his questioning by opening up — with the help of six others — a 50-foot collage of every selfie KGM had posted on Instagram, several with… Beauty filters. Zuckerberg asked whether Meta investigated her account of unhealthy behavior. Zuckerberg did not respond.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg takes the stand at Los Angeles Superior Court in Los Angeles, California, US, February 18, 2026. Zuckerberg faces a jury in a landmark trial alleging that social media platforms are addictive and intentionally harming children. (Mona Edwards)

Earlier, Lanier pressed Zuckerberg on his decision to allow beauty filters that mimic plastic surgery after 18 internal experts warned they were harmful to teenage girls and could contribute to body dysmorphia, according to internal documents. Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, eventually overturned the temporary ban and allowed filters on the platform. Prosecutors contend that the decision exposed vulnerable young users to tools linked to body dysmorphia and other mental health struggles.

Zuckerberg defended the decision by saying that after the ban was lifted, Instagram did not create its own filters or recommend them to users. “I think a lot of times telling people they can’t express themselves that way is arrogant,” he added.

Click here for more Fox News opinions

What a turn. removal Plastic surgery filters Harming young girls is, in his words, “arrogant.” Many parents would call it setting reasonable safeguards.

While Zuckerberg has publicly said that Meta cares about children’s safety — he told Congress in 2024 that “our job is to make sure we build tools to help keep people safe” and that “we stand by Parents everywhere They work hard to raise their children” – internal evidence presented at trial suggests otherwise.

Click here to download the FOX NEWS app

Although he did not admit in court that he knew his products were addictive or targeted at teenagers, he did not need to. The jury — and the public — can weigh his answers against internal documents and decide for themselves.

Click here to read more from Claire Morrell