Grieving Families Confront Meta CEO as Questions Mount Over Child Safety
LOS ANGELES — Testimony was delivered this week by Mark Zuckerberg in a Los Angeles courtroom as part of a closely watched trial examining whether social media platforms have failed in their duty to protect children. For families present in the courtroom, the proceedings were viewed not only as a legal battle but as a test of children’s right to safety in digital spaces.
The case has been brought against Meta Platforms, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook. It is the first of thousands of similar lawsuits to reach a jury. The plaintiff alleges that platform features were designed in ways that encouraged compulsive use and exposed children to harmful content, contributing to serious mental health impacts.
The allegations have been denied by Meta. It has been stated by the company that significant investments have been made in safety tools, that users under 13 are barred, and that teen-focused protections have been introduced in recent years.
Children as rights-holders
Throughout the trial, the issue of addiction has been debated. However, a broader safeguarding question has been raised. When digital platforms are used daily by millions of children, should the same standards of protection that apply in schools and other child-centered environments also be applied online?
Under established child protection principles, children are recognized as rights-holders entitled to safety, dignity and healthy development. In offline settings, foreseeable risks are expected to be identified and mitigated by responsible institutions. Advocates argue that comparable duties should be applied to digital platforms.
Internal company communications were presented in court. Discussions of teen engagement and strategies to increase time spent on the platform were referenced. A 2019 external research report cited during testimony indicated that some teenage users described feeling “hooked” on Instagram despite negative emotional effects.
It was maintained by Zuckerberg that the research had not been conducted internally and that safety concerns have been addressed over time. Tools allowing daily time limits, private default settings and restrictions on messaging have been highlighted as evidence of reform.
However, internal data introduced during questioning showed that only a small percentage of teenage users activated voluntary safety features. From a safeguarding perspective, concern has been raised that protections requiring activation by children or parents may not meet a reasonable standard of care.
Foreseeable harm
The risks described in court were not presented as hypothetical. Bereaved families have stated that children were exposed to self-harm content, dangerous online challenges, sexual exploitation attempts and other harmful material through recommendation systems.
Outside the courthouse, Lori Schott held a photograph of her daughter Annalee, who died at 18. It was alleged that algorithmic amplification contributed to exposure to harmful content. Calls were made for changes to be implemented more swiftly and more decisively.
The central safeguarding question is whether these harms were foreseeable and whether proportionate steps were taken once risks were identified. Internal documents referencing underage users and teen retention were introduced as part of that inquiry. Zuckerberg acknowledged that faster progress on age enforcement should have been made but stated that appropriate measures were eventually implemented.
Within child protection frameworks, early intervention is typically expected once credible evidence of risk is identified. The timing and adequacy of Meta’s response have therefore become key issues for the jury.
Designing with protection at the core
The proceedings have intensified debate about what meaningful digital safeguarding should involve.
It has been argued by child safety experts that stronger measures could include strict privacy protections applied automatically to all children’s accounts, more effective age verification systems, and algorithmic adjustments preventing the amplification of harmful content. Independent audits and transparent reporting on safety outcomes have also been proposed.
Meta has stated that teen users account for less than one percent of advertising revenue and that extensive collaboration with researchers and safety experts has been undertaken. New account structures for teenagers have been introduced and described as evidence of an evolving approach.
Critics maintain that platforms originally engineered to maximize engagement may struggle to prioritize protection unless safeguarding is embedded at the design stage rather than added later.
A pivotal moment
The legal implications of the case extend beyond one company. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has historically shielded platforms from liability for user-generated content. In this trial, arguments have focused on product design and risk management rather than individual posts.
Globally, increased scrutiny of children’s online experiences has been observed. Restrictions on social media use for children have been introduced in Australia, and similar measures are under consideration in several European countries.
For families gathered in Los Angeles, the trial has been viewed as an opportunity to affirm that children possess a right to protection in all environments where they live and develop, including digital ones.
A verdict has yet to be delivered. However, the broader question remains: when platforms play a central role in childhood, should safeguarding be treated as optional, or as a core responsibility?
In the courtroom, that question has been placed before a jury. Outside it, it continues to be asked by parents seeking assurance that children will be protected in the digital age.
