The social media trial brought by a 20-year-old Californian plaintiff against Meta and YouTube has captured the world’s attention, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifying in court on February 18. Although Zuckerberg said very little during his first day of testimony, the fact that he was present in court is a significant moment in the trial, which could establish the first real legal boundaries for social media platforms and their liability for harm caused to users.
The trial is a test case for the liability of social media platforms, with the plaintiff alleging that she faced anxiety, depression, and body image issues after using Instagram. The proceedings could determine whether amplifying harmful content amounts to negligence, and a verdict against Meta or YouTube could open the door to other suits and force disclosure of internal research that has so far remained confidential. According to Steven Buckley, lecturer in media digital and sociology at City St George’s, University of London, “This is a significant moment in terms of these platforms finally being seen to be held to account by their own users.”
Zuckerberg withstood rigorous questioning from the lawyer representing the plaintiff, but the fact that he was present in court and the case got to trial is a significant happening. The trial is notable because it managed to sidestep the usual way social networks swerve liability by claiming Section 230 protections, which have been in place since the mid-1990s. If jurors agree that product design, rather than user behavior, is the root cause of harm, big tech’s decades-long legal shield could begin to fracture. Prior to the trial, Snap and TikTok settled with the claimant without admission of liability, leaving YouTube and Meta to fight the trial.
A Meta spokesperson stated that the firm “strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.” However, experts such as Tama Leaver, professor of internet studies at Curtin University in Australia, were unimpressed by Zuckerberg’s performance in court, saying “Zuckerberg didn’t feel like someone who’d done their homework, but rather someone who was surprised they had to turn up and answer these questions.” Leaver also noted that Adam Mosseri, who testified a few days earlier, “had the tenacity to argue that the term addiction is being misused”, in contrast to Zuckerberg’s performance.
The trial’s outcome could have significant implications for the tech industry, with billions in potential damages on the line. While some think that a decision against the social media firms could backfire, with people calling for a ban on under-16s using the platforms, experts like Buckley argue that this would be a “woefully misguided reaction”. The trial has already achieved something that years of congressional hearings and regulatory hand-wringing haven’t: putting the people who designed these systems under oath and making them answer difficult questions.
The rest of the tech industry, including companies like Nvidia, Ring, and OpenAI, will be watching closely to see what comes next. The trial’s outcome could set a precedent for future cases and force social media companies to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. As Buckley notes, “One of the reasons I think we have gotten to this stage is that some people have come to the conclusion that their governments are not going to do anything meaningful to hold these companies to account and so have felt compelled to take them on themselves.”
Leave a Reply