Mark Zuckerberg Confronts Social Media Addiction Lawsuit in Los Angeles Court

10 February 2026

Meta’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg found himself under intense scrutiny earlier this month as he took the stand in a high-profile lawsuit over alleged social media addiction and harm to young people at Los Angeles County Superior Court, where the case has quickly become one of the most watched tech trials of the year.

The lawsuit, brought by a 20-year-old plaintiff who claims that heavy use of Instagram and other platforms designed by Meta contributed to addiction and mental health struggles, has drawn national attention because it seeks to hold one of the tech industry’s most powerful figures personally accountable for the effects these digital products have on users’ wellbeing. Zuckerberg’s appearance marked a rare moment for the billionaire to defend his company’s decisions directly before a jury and answer pointed questions about how Facebook, Instagram and YouTube are constructed and promoted.

Arriving at the courthouse in a tailored suit, Zuckerberg faced a courtroom filled with family members of alleged victims who hope the case will set a precedent for thousands of similar claims nationwide. The trial goes beyond typical corporate disputes because it directly challenges the widely held belief that social media platforms are benign tools for connection and entertainment. Instead, the plaintiff argues these platforms are deliberately designed to be addictive, maximising time on screen and reinforcing behaviours that can harm mental health, particularly among youth.

As lawyers presented internal documents suggesting past efforts to increase user engagement and data indicating significant use among children under the age of 13, tensions in the courtroom rose and underscored how emotional and consequential the proceedings have become.

Zuckerberg testified that Meta has taken steps to address safety concerns and improve age verification, and he denied claims that the company intentionally crafted addictive features to exploit young users. He said that user engagement goals were tied to creating features people would find valuable, but he pushed back against accusations that any such aims were meant to harm. Lawyers for the plaintiff countered that internal strategies at the company did, in fact, focus on increasing the amount of time users, including minors, spent scrolling through feeds and interacting with content. This clash over internal practices versus public commitments has become a central theme of the trial.

The litigation incorporates testimony from former Meta executives who claim company culture prioritised growth and engagement over wellbeing, as well as expert witnesses who describe compulsive patterns of use that resemble addiction. Critiques have also emerged over decisions such as reinstating features like beauty filters that were once paused due to concerns over body image issues among teens, further complicating Zuckerberg’s defense. Such testimony has deepened the spotlight on how internal decisions at major tech firms ripple outward into the lives of everyday users, and whether corporate leaders like Zuckerberg should bear responsibility for those outcomes.

Beyond the courtroom drama, the lawsuit reflects a broader shift in how society views the influence of social media. Public opinion surveys indicate a strong desire among Americans for greater accountability from tech giants over issues including addictive designs and mental health impacts. Lawmakers have cited this case in calls for new regulations that might, for the first time, impose a legal duty of care on platforms and hold them financially responsible for harm caused by their products. It is a conversation that has gained momentum not only in the United States but globally, as nations grapple with how to protect youth in an increasingly digital world.

For Zuckerberg, the trial represents more than a legal challenge. It is a defining moment for Meta’s public image and corporate ethos, as well as a test of how far users, families and the justice system will go to seek redress for the modern consequences of digital engagement. As this landmark case unfolds, the broader tech industry watches closely, aware that the outcome could signal far-reaching changes in liability, regulation and the very design of social media itself.