Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg denied under oath Wednesday that he misled Congress about whether his company designed its social media platforms to maximize the time children spend on their screens.
Mark Lanier, the attorney representing a California woman who claims Meta’s platforms harmed her mental health when she was a child, grilled the billionaire tech mogul during his testimony in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Lanier showed jurors emails from 2014 and 2015 in which Zuckerberg outlined goals to increase time spent on the app by double-digit percentage points — pressing him on whether that contradicted his prior statements to Congress.
The attorney asked Zuckerberg whether those internal targets undercut his 2024 congressional testimony that Meta did not give its teams the goal of maximizing time spent on its platforms.
“If you are trying to say my testimony was not accurate, I strongly disagree with that,” Zuckerberg told the court under oath.
This marked the billionaire founder’s first time testifying before a jury over claims that Meta’s platforms were engineered to hook young users and fuel a youth mental health crisis.
The lawsuit is the first of roughly 1,500 consolidated cases accusing Meta and other tech giants of designing addictive products that harm children — a verdict that could expose the company to significant damages.
Pressed on whether Instagram was truly off-limits to children under 13, Zuckerberg insisted the company’s policy has always been clear.
“There’s a distinction about whether someone is allowed to do something and whether we’ve caught them for breaking the rule. I don’t see why this is so complicated. It’s been our clear policy that people under the age of 13 are not allowed,” he testified.
He acknowledged, however, that enforcing that rule has been challenging, telling jurors: “I generally think that there are a set of people, potentially a meaningful number of people who lie about their age in order to use our services. There’s a separate and very important question about enforcement, and it’s very difficult.”
When confronted with internal engagement benchmarks presented through Instagram chief Adam Mosseri — including daily usage targets — Zuckerberg maintained the company’s focus was not addiction but competition and product performance.
He said such milestones were used internally to “measure against competitors” and “deliver the results we want to see.”
When questioned about his control over the company, Zuckerberg acknowledged the extent of his voting power.
“If the board wants to fire me, I could elect a new board and reinstate myself,” he said.
Zuckerberg was asked about comments he made on Joe Rogan’s podcast in which he claimed that he wasn’t worried about losing his job due to the voting power that he holds within the company.
At one point, when the plaintiff’s attorney suggested his testimony appeared carefully polished, Zuckerberg brushed off the characterization.
“I’m not — I think I’m actually sort of well-known to be very bad at this,” he said.
He also conceded that Meta could have acted faster in identifying underage users on its platforms.
“I always wish that we could have gotten there sooner,” Zuckerberg told the court.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, the judge also warned anyone wearing Meta’s Ray-Ban AI glasses in the courtroom that recording would not be tolerated.
“If you have done that, you must delete that, or you will be held in contempt of the court. This is very serious,” the judge said.
Members of Zuckerberg’s team were photographed entering the courthouse wearing the smart glasses, which are capable of recording video.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.