Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is set to testify in a Los Angeles courtroom this week in a trial that could reshape the legal future of social media in California and beyond. At issue is a question with sweeping implications for Silicon Valley: Are platforms like Instagram and YouTube “defective products” designed to exploit children’s brains?
According to NPR, the civil case, unfolding in California state court, centers on a now 20-year-old woman identified as KGM, who alleges she began compulsively using YouTube at age 6 and later Instagram at age 9. Her lawsuit claims the platforms’ design worsened her depression and suicidal thoughts.
Her legal team is pursuing an aggressive strategy. Rather than challenge user content, the lawsuit frames social media as a product liability issue. The claim: features like infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and algorithmic feeds were intentionally engineered to maximize engagement in ways that harm minors.
“These companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children,” attorney Mark Lanier said in opening statements.
Meta and Google, the two remaining defendants after TikTok and Snap settled, counter that teen mental health challenges have complex causes and that social media is being cast as a scapegoat. They argue that a product designed to connect people cannot be deemed defective simply because some users experience harm.
Still, the stakes are high. More than 1,600 similar cases have been consolidated nationwide, and a verdict in California could influence settlement talks across the industry. Under state rules, nine of 12 jurors must agree on a decision.
Zuckerberg’s testimony will not be livestreamed, but public reaction online has been blunt.
On Reddit’s r/technology forum, one comment described Zuckerberg as the “Escobar of digital addiction,” likening Meta’s engagement-driven design to a modern vice industry. Others compared the case to the legal reckoning that confronted Big Tobacco decades ago.
“Defective is an odd word considering it’s all working as intended,” one commenter wrote. “Malicious is more accurate.”
That tension reflects the legal nuance at play. In product liability law, the focus is not necessarily on executive intent but on whether a product is unsafe for its intended use. Plaintiffs argue the intended use is inseparable from the alleged harm.
For decades, Silicon Valley has relied on Section 230 as a powerful legal shield. This California trial tests whether companies can be held accountable not just for what appears on their platforms, but for how those platforms are built.
As Zuckerberg takes the stand in Los Angeles, the outcome may determine whether social media is treated as a neutral tool or as a product whose design carries legal consequences.
