Last week, Mark Zuckerberg provided five hours of testimony in a California courtroom, defending himself and Meta against accusations that the company purposefully designed its platforms to be addictive and detrimental to young users’ mental health. The case centers around a 20-year-old woman, referred to as K.G.M. or “Kaley,” who claims that her addiction to Instagram and YouTube has severely impacted her mental wellbeing. Meta’s legal team contends that her mental health issues stemmed from unrelated trauma and abuse, arguing that the nature of social media usage does not equate to clinical addiction.
The trial has raised critical questions about the psychiatric understanding of social media addiction. Meta asserts a distinction between “problematic” usage and “clinically addictive” behaviors, positioning the company as not liable for any adverse mental health effects stemming from extreme platform use. In a similar vein, YouTube has sought to distance itself from the social media label, despite its recent forays into short-form video content that closely resembles that of Instagram and TikTok.
This case has been described as social media’s “Big Tobacco moment,” with over 1,500 related lawsuits hinging on its outcome. Should the jury find Meta and YouTube liable, the companies could face billions in damages and be mandated to overhaul their operational practices, particularly in relation to safeguarding minors from potential harm.
During his testimony, Zuckerberg echoed sentiments similar to those expressed by political figures in high-stakes scenarios. He stated, “We get feedback from a handful of different stakeholders,” regarding the potential harm of his products. He emphasized that he considered this feedback carefully, arguing that the company does not deliberately engineer its platforms to be addictive. However, internal communications from 2015 that were presented in court revealed that the company aimed to increase user engagement, raising questions about the intent behind such goals.
Defense attorneys argued against allowing inquiries related to Zuckerberg’s substantial net worth, emphasizing that while his compensation and stock holdings could be discussed, any questions regarding his total wealth and asset holdings were off-limits. This decision coincided with broader discussions about the unequal distribution of wealth in the United States.
The defense maintains that features such as infinite scroll and autoplay do not inherently constitute a product designed to be addictive. However, past testimonies, including that of whistleblower Frances Haugen, have cast doubt on this claim, indicating that Meta was aware of the detrimental effects these features had on young users, particularly teenage girls. Internal research indicated that one in three teen girls found their body image issues worsened due to their experiences on the platform.
Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, have pointed to new measures aimed at protecting users under 18, such as minimum age requirements and parental oversight tools. Nevertheless, critics highlight that these measures can be easily circumvented, as young users can simply provide false birthdates.
Kaley recounted her early experiences with social media, noting that she first downloaded YouTube at age eight and joined Instagram at nine. She testified to using Instagram for as much as 16 hours a day during her teenage years—a pattern mirrored by many in her generation, who have navigated significant life milestones through social media platforms.
As the court deliberates over the legal implications of these events, deeper questions remain regarding the broader societal and moral ramifications of turning social interactions into addictive digital engagements. Zuckerberg, in previous comments, has expressed a personal commitment to limiting screen time for his children, illustrating the contrasting perspectives held by tech leaders and the realities faced by users of their platforms.
