Meta Chief Government Mark Zuckerberg made an prolonged, pugnacious look in Los Angeles Superior Courtroom on Wednesday, defending his firm from the witness stand in opposition to a lawsuit that alleges social media harms youngsters.
The Meta boss appeared in a darkish swimsuit and grey tie, his signature chestnut curls barely mussed, darting occasional nervous seems on the jury and the 20-year-old plaintiff, who sat within the courtroom gallery.
“I’m not —I believe I’m truly kind of well-known to be very dangerous at this,” Zuckerberg advised the younger girl’s legal professional, Mark Lanier, when pressed in regards to the skilled polish of his testimony.
In a dramatic second late within the morning, Decide Carolyn B. Kuhl sharply warned anybody within the courtroom in opposition to sporting Meta’s AI glasses.
“In case your glasses are recording, you should take them off,” the choose mentioned. “It’s the order of this court docket that there should be no facial recognition of the jury. If in case you have completed that, you should delete it. That is very severe.”
The admonition was met with silence within the courtroom.
Merely getting Zuckerberg on the stand Wednesday was a coup for the plaintiffs and a possible legal responsibility for his firm’s platforms, which should now take care of profound public distaste for the Meta figurehead.
In line with a examine final 12 months by the nonpartisan Pew Analysis Heart, the overwhelming majority of American adults have an unfavorable view of Zuckerberg.
The % of adults who view him very favorably is on par with the share who imagine the Earth is flat or that aliens reside amongst us.
“It’s a really large deal,” mentioned Jenny Kim, an legal professional in a associated lawsuit. “The entire world is coming to look at him.”
Crowds stuffed the plaza outdoors the Spring Avenue courthouse downtown Wednesday, with traces stretched out the door to enter the constructing, the place many had waited for hours only for a glimpse of the CEO.
The plaintiff, a Chico, Calif., girl known as Kaley G.M., appeared within the courtroom for the primary time since she was briefly launched throughout opening statements on Feb. 9.
Her lawsuit is a check case chosen from amongst a whole lot charging that Instagram and YouTube have been designed to snare younger customers and preserve them hooked on their providers. Two different defendants, TikTok and Snap, have settled out of court docket.
Zuckerberg testified that youngsters beneath 13 have by no means been allowed on the platform. Kaley mentioned in her declare that she began utilizing Instagram at age 9.
“I typically assume that there are a set of individuals, probably a significant quantity of people that lie about their age as a way to use our providers,” he mentioned. “There’s a separate and essential query about enforcement, and it’s very troublesome.”
Lanier confirmed an inside doc from 2018 suggesting that Instagram believed about 4 million customers have been beneath 13 — roughly 30% of all 10 to 12-year-olds within the U.S. on the time.
“There’s a distinction about whether or not somebody is allowed to do one thing and whether or not we’ve caught them for breaking the rule,” Zuckerberg mentioned in response to repeated questioning. “I don’t see why that is so difficult. It’s been our clear coverage that folks beneath the age of 13 are usually not allowed.”
Zuckerberg additionally testified that the corporate doesn’t set targets for time spent on Instagram.
However inside Meta paperwork launched about an hour later appeared to contradict each these claims.
A number of paperwork courting again so far as 2013 detailed efforts to focus on teenagers particularly, together with to develop “time spent” on the app by youngsters beneath 13.
An inside message trade between Instagram workers in 2017 captures two underlings grousing about Zuckerberg’s push to “go after beneath 13-year-olds”.
“Yeah, it was gross the final time he talked about it,” the staffer mentioned.
A 2022 doc detailing “milestones” for the corporate’s apps confirmed a benchmark of 40 minutes of time spent on the app for Instagram’s every day lively customers in 2023, scaling to 46 minutes per day in 2026.
“These aren’t targets we give the groups for executing their jobs,” Zuckerberg mentioned. “They’re methods we measure throughout the trade whether or not what we’re creating is on monitor.”
Meta’s legal professionals have up to now sought to discredit the thought of social media dependancy, whereas concurrently casting doubt on whether or not Kaley truly has it.
Zuckerberg’s private likability is irrelevant to the case, the corporate mentioned.
“The query for the jury in Los Angeles is whether or not Instagram was a considerable issue within the plaintiff’s psychological well being struggles,” mentioned Meta spokeswoman Stephanie Otway. “The proof will present she confronted many important, troublesome challenges nicely earlier than she ever used social media.”
Mother and father and members of the family embrace earlier than getting into the Los Angeles Superior Courtroom on February 18, 2026, for a civil trial over a lawsuit that claims social media giants intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive to youngsters.
(Frederic J. Brown / AFP through Getty Photos)
Whatever the consequence of the trial, Zuckerberg’s testimony has the potential to complicate Meta’s picture and political ambitions, consultants mentioned.
“Simply his look on the stand illustrates how public opinion has shifted,” mentioned David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State College, who research tech in politics. “That has necessary impacts on Meta’s affect and massive tech’s affect in California politics.”
Certainly, the CEO takes the stand as Meta doubles down its efforts to affect Golden State affairs.
The corporate has lengthy been a key participant in state and native races, pouring tens of millions into poll measures, the state legislature and candidates for California governor. It usually lavishes money on either side of a difficulty, and opponents in the identical race.
Final 12 months, the company sunk $20 million into a brand new state tremendous PAC — Mobilizing Financial Transformation Throughout (Meta) California — with a watch to key 2026 races.
It has additionally pledged $50 million to a joint challenge with Sacramento State College to redevelop the Capital Mall.
“They’ve grow to be far more offensive with their cash,” McCuan mentioned. “They’re not simply blocking laws, they’ve been extra actively attempting to alter their picture.”
That has the potential to backfire, he and others mentioned.
“Voters are fairly upset heading into the midterms,” the professional mentioned. “It comes at a second when shoppers, customers, voters, are able to throw the e book at somebody or one thing. Now you’ve gotten a man who may seize that anger.”
“When you consider how Meta is utilizing Meta’s cash, it’s mark Zuckerberg’s slush fund to play in California or nationwide politics,” mentioned Sacha Haworth, government director of The Tech Oversight Undertaking, a watchdog group.
A media camp is set-up outdoors the Spring Avenue Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, the place Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was scheduled to testify on Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2026.
(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Occasions)
On the similar time Meta expanded its political spending, Zuckerberg and his spouse Priscilla Chan aggressively redirected their charitable giving to AI and scientific analysis.
“I’ve pledged to provide nearly all of my cash to charity, and I deal with giving billions of {dollars} to science analysis, so the higher that Meta does, the extra we’re ready to do this sort of analysis,” he advised Lanier when pushed on his private stake within the firm.
The choose in parallel federal litigation has already dominated Zuckerberg can’t face private legal responsibility, placing his estimated $220 billion fortune out of attain for the hundreds of plaintiffs.
“Most of [my] inventory in Meta is owned by the CZI group,” the CEO advised the jury. “We put money into science analysis and different charitable causes.”
