The Zuckerberg Rules
Meta, along with other social media companies, is facing thousands of lawsuits alleging that they have pushed a defective product onto adolescents. The lawsuits allege that these products are purposely designed to maximize screen time by young people. The addictive use of products like Instagram and Facebook, the lawsuits allege, has a negative impact on the mental health of teens. As a result, the products are responsible for the emotional and physical harm of millions of users. In some cases, the plaintiffs are families of young people who have committed suicide.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, currently the world’s sixth richest man, has already testified in one such case, K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms & YouTube, which was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. The case was brought by a woman, known as Kaley, who said she suffered from depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts after becoming addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a young child.
During his testimony Zuckerberg was confronted with internal documents that showed Meta was targeting young users, including one showing the company seeking to increase the time 10-year-olds spend on Instagram. “I don’t remember the context of this email from more than ten years ago,” Zuckerberg said. “I think the way we should build things is to build useful services for people to connect with their family and friends and learn about the world.”
The jury was not convinced.
Kaley was awarded $6 million, with Meta ordered to pay 70%. K.G.M., however, is just the tip of the iceberg. It is a bellwether case for 1600 others before the same Los Angeles court. A bellwether case is used in mass torts to help establish the value of an individual claim and facilitate a broader settlement.
There are even more cases against Meta and other social media companies in federal court in Oakland, California. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is overseeing cases filed by more than 30 state attorneys general, nearly 800 school districts, and thousands of individual cases. These consolidated federal cases against Meta are known as multi-district litigation (MDL).
The legal system already makes significant accommodations to make these cases more manageable for corporate defendants. All of the pre-trial motions and discovery are consolidated. That means Zuckerberg only had to be deposed once and Meta only needed to produce one set of documents for all plaintiffs. Further, each set of plaintiffs will only have a handful of cases actually go to trial. The first such case, Breathitt County School District, is scheduled to begin in June.
In an extraordinary April 24 legal filing, lawyers for Meta said that Zuckerberg would testify at the Breathitt trial but, after that, all other plaintiffs in the MDL should be prohibited from calling him as a witness at any future trial. Moving forward, other plaintiffs could play a videotape of his previous testimony. This was necessary, according to Meta’s lawyers, to avoid “the burdens to Meta of having its top executive repeatedly called to testify.”
The filing stresses that Zuckerberg is “the Chief Executive of one of the country’s largest companies” and calling him to testify more than once about claims that his company harmed children is akin to “abuse or harassment.”
There is little legal basis for Meta’s claims. They repeatedly cite the “apex doctrine,” which protects corporate executives from having to be deposed before trial when a lower-ranking official possesses the same knowledge. But it is a doctrine that applies to the pre-trial discovery process, not live testimony. In their opposition to Meta’s motion, the plaintiffs cite the 3M earplug litigation where the CEO was required to repeatedly testify across multiple bellwether cases rather than allow prior recorded testimony.
The other issue is that while the MDL cases have similarities, they feature different legal theories and evidence. The Breathitt case, unlike others brought by different plaintiffs, does not involve Meta’s handling of Child Sexual Abuse Material or issues related to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Therefore, Zuckerberg’s testimony in the Breathitt case will not cover all the issues relevant to other plaintiffs.
But Meta has already abandoned its maximalist position. It agreed to have Zuckerberg testify separately for the case brought by the state attorneys general. But Meta maintains that Zuckerberg should not be required to testify in any other MDL trial.
Fundamentally, the plaintiffs argue that Zuckerberg should not be treated differently simply because he is rich and powerful:
Testifying in future trials does not present any bona fide inconvenience to Mr. Zuckerberg— not any more than the inconvenience any witness would face. Mr. Zuckerberg’s power, wealth, or executive status should not privilege his time over that of other witnesses, be they low-level employees or school teachers. Mr. Zuckerberg is a key witness, and he should be called to trial in person.
In a statement, a Meta spokesperson said the effort to make Zuckerberg testify in future trials is “nothing more than a PR play by the plaintiffs’ lawyers to drum up more attention.”
The judge has not yet issued a ruling.
Meta’s ad games
Meta is also attempting to use its wealth and power to tilt the playing field outside of the courtroom. In April, Axios reported that Meta “began removing advertisements from attorneys who were seeking clients that claim to have been harmed by social media while under the age of 18.”
Meta admitted it was restricting ads on its platform to prevent plaintiffs from filing additional lawsuits. “We’re actively defending ourselves against these lawsuits and are removing ads that attempt to recruit plaintiffs for them,” a company spokesperson told Axios. “We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful.”
Meanwhile, ahead of the K.G.M. trial, Meta “paid for thousands of television commercials to promote its safety work with teens.” According to data collected by the Tech Oversight Project, the ads ran more than 3,500 times on television between November 2025 and February 2026. The company declined to share how much it spent on the ads — but it was considerable. Data from the firm AdImpact shows just one of the ads cost an estimated $700,000.
On kicking plaintiff lawyers’ ads off their platform: hasn’t Meta (haven’t all the social media platforms) whined that they can’t possibly moderate content? Except sometimes, I guess. Most parents of young children will recognize that argument. Surely a jury will see through it as well.
Zuck needs to be made an example of, he’s nothing but a shitweasel, I hope the courts skewer him!