Under oath, Meta's Zuckerberg showed why Big Tech can't police itself

While Zuckerberg's testimony was often characterized by sidestepping and dodging questions - to the point that the judge instructed him to answer directly - he can't deflect his way out of this one. The evidence in this social media trial speaks for itself.

Zuckerberg was presented with a 2015 email in which the CEO stated his goal for 2016 was to increase users' time spent on the platform by 12%. Zuckerberg argued that Meta's growth targets reflect an aim to give users something useful, not to addict them, and stated that the company does not seek to attract children as users.

When asked whether he believes people tend to use something more if it's addictive, he dismissed the premise. "I don't think that applies here," he said.

But it absolutely does apply. Meta's entire business model is built on user engagement. Social media appears "free," but a child's time, attention and data are the product being sold. More hours with eyes glued to the screen mean more advertisements to sell. The user is the product. The incentive is to keep users engaged as much as possible.

Zuckerberg said the company removes identified underage users and includes terms about age requirements during the sign-up process. Lanier responded, "You expect a 9-year-old to read all of the fine print? That's your basis for swearing under oath that children under 13 are not allowed?"

Zuckerberg added that some children "lie about their age in order to use the services." During this exchange, he also said, "I don't see why this is so complicated ... we have rules, and people broadly understand that."

In practice, age verification on most social media platforms relies largely on self-reported birthdates. A child can enter a false age, click to accept the terms and conditions and gain access within minutes. Critics argue that without meaningful safeguards, age restrictions amount to little more than an honor system.

Instagram should never have allowed her on the platform at age 9, the plaintiff argues. Whether the jury ultimately agrees remains to be seen, but the case places responsibility for those decisions squarely on Meta's leadership.

Earlier, Lanier pressed Zuckerberg about his decision to allow beauty filters that mimicked plastic surgery after 18 internal experts warned they were harmful to teenage girls and could contribute to body dysmorphia, according to internal documents. Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, ultimately reversed a temporary ban and allowed the filters on the platform. Plaintiffs contend that decision exposed vulnerable young users to tools linked to body dysmorphia and other mental health struggles.

Zuckerberg defended the decision by saying that after lifting the ban, Instagram did not create its own filters or recommend them to users. He added, "I think oftentimes telling people that they can't express themselves like that is overbearing."

Though he would not admit in court that he knew his products were addictive or targeted teens, he didn't need to. The jury - and the public - can weigh his answers against the internal documents and decide for themselves.