Zuckerberg Under Oath: Instagram Kid Trap?

Internal Meta documents shown to jurors in Los Angeles are forcing Mark Zuckerberg to defend Instagram’s kid-safety promises under oath—while families argue the platform was engineered to keep children scrolling.

Story Snapshot

Zuckerberg testified Feb. 18 in an L.A. civil trial alleging Instagram and YouTube used addictive design features that harmed minors.
Meta denies it intentionally addicted kids, says under-13 use is banned but difficult to fully enforce, and disputes causation in the plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiffs point to internal documents and research—including “Project Myst”—arguing companies tracked teen engagement and understood vulnerable kids were at higher risk.
The case is positioned as a bellwether for hundreds of similar lawsuits and parallel actions brought by state attorneys general.

Zuckerberg’s sworn denial meets a paper trail of internal debate

Mark Zuckerberg took the stand Feb. 18 in Los Angeles Superior Court and denied that Meta intentionally built Instagram to addict minors. Zuckerberg said children under 13 are not allowed on Instagram, acknowledged enforcement is difficult, and testified that teams were not given goals tied to time spent.

Plaintiffs, however, are using internal Meta communications and planning documents—some dating back to 2013—to argue the company pursued growth among teens and even younger users.

The lawsuit centers on a 20-year-old plaintiff identified in some reporting as “KGM,” who says she began using Instagram at age 9 and later experienced severe mental-health harms, including depression and eating disorders.

Meta’s defense has emphasized alternative explanations, including trauma and bullying, and argues the platform was not a substantial factor in her struggles. Meta also argues her medical records do not contain a formal addiction diagnosis, a point that could matter to jurors weighing causation and damages.

“Project Myst” and the fight over what the companies knew about vulnerable kids

Opening arguments highlighted internal material plaintiffs say shows Silicon Valley understood how design choices affect children, especially those under stress. One focal point has been “Project Myst,” described as a Meta research effort that indicated trauma-stressed kids were particularly vulnerable and that existing controls were not reliably protective.

Plaintiffs say this undercuts the public posture that safety tools were sufficient. Meta disputes the broader conclusion that its products were designed with an intent to addict minors.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg faced questioning in a Los Angeles courtroom on Wednesday about Instagram's under-13 users and Meta's efforts to boost engagement, as a trial examines whether the company knowingly offered an addictive and harmful product to children and teens.…

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 18, 2026

YouTube/Google is also a defendant, and the courtroom fight has widened beyond one company’s brand. Plaintiffs are trying to connect product features—such as recommendations and repeated viewing loops—to compulsive use patterns in minors.

The defense side has pushed back on comparisons to casinos and tobacco, arguing the products are lawful services used safely by many families. With no verdict yet, the case remains an unresolved clash between internal corporate research and public-facing assurances.

A bellwether trial with national consequences for liability and regulation

This is not a one-off dispute. Reporting around the case describes it as the first major jury trial in a wave of litigation claiming social-media platforms harmed children through addictive design. Hundreds of lawsuits are pending, and more than 40 state attorneys general have sued Meta in related actions.

A single verdict could shape settlement pressure and guide how judges treat internal documents across future cases, especially where plaintiffs argue companies prioritized engagement metrics over child well-being.

What conservatives should watch: parental authority vs. corporate power—and government overreach

Families want accountability, and they are using the civil courts to pursue it—often the cleanest constitutional path compared with sweeping federal mandates. The unresolved policy question is what comes next if juries begin finding liability: targeted remedies and transparency could help parents, but heavy-handed regulatory schemes can also create new speech and privacy problems.

Conservatives should demand clarity on what platforms knew, what they did, and whether reforms strengthen families without handing Washington another excuse for broad control over Americans’ digital lives.

The evidence phase is ongoing and the trial is expected to run weeks, with additional executives anticipated to testify. Until jurors rule, the public has competing claims: Zuckerberg’s sworn denial that time-spent goals drove teams and that under-13s were targeted, versus internal records and research plaintiffs say show intentional engagement strategies.

The most concrete take-away so far is that internal corporate documents—not political talking points—are becoming the central battlefield in how America decides to protect kids without sacrificing liberty.