Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday, defending his company from witness testimony in a lawsuit alleging that social media is harming children.
The Meta boss appeared in a black suit and gray tie, his signature chestnut curls tousled, scowling at the judge and the 20-year-old plaintiff, who sat in the courtroom gallery.
“I’m not—I think I’m actually known as the worst person in this,” Zuckerberg told the young woman’s lawyer, Mark Lanier, when pressed about the brilliance of his testimony.
In a dramatic moment early this morning, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl sternly warned anyone in court against wearing Meta’s AI glasses.
“If your glasses are recording, you must take them off,” said the judge. “It is the order of this court that the judge’s face should not be seen. it should remove it. This is very serious.”
The order was met with silence in the court.
Just getting Zuckerberg in court on Wednesday was a blow to the plaintiffs and a potential liability in the courts for his company, which now has to deal with massive public outrage over the Meta executive.
According to a survey last year by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, a majority of American adults have a negative view of Zuckerberg.
The percentage of adults who view him favorably is equal to the percentage who believe the Earth is flat or that aliens live among us.
“It’s a very big issue,” said Jenny Kim, a lawyer in a related case. “The whole world will look at him.”
Crowds filled the plaza outside the city’s Spring Street courthouse Wednesday, with lines stretching out the door to the building, where many had waited hours to see the chief executive.
The plaintiff, a Chico, Calif., woman named Kaley GM, appeared in court for the first time since her brief opening statement on February 9.
His case is a test case chosen among hundreds that charge that Instagram and YouTube are designed to trap young users and keep them immersed in their services. Two other defendants, TikTok and Snap, appeared in court.
Zuckerberg stated that children under the age of 13 were never allowed on the platform. Kaley said in her application that she started using Instagram when she was 9 years old.
“In general I think there is a pool of people, probably a reasonable number of people who lie about their age to use our services,” he said. “There’s a different and more important question about law enforcement, and it’s a very difficult one.”
Lanier pointed to an internal document from 2018 that suggests Instagram believes about four million users are under the age of 13 — about 30% of all 10- to 12-year-olds in the US at the time.
“There is a difference between whether someone is allowed to do something and whether we have caught them breaking the law,” said Zuckerberg in response to repeated questions. “I don’t see why this is so strange, it was our clear policy that people under the age of 13 are not allowed.”
Zuckerberg also testified that the company does not set goals for time spent on Instagram.
But internal Meta documents released about an hour later appear to contradict both of those claims.
Several documents dating back to 2013 detail efforts to specifically target youth, including increasing “time spent” on the app by children under 13.
An internal message exchange between Instagram employees in 2017 captures two underlings complaining about Zuckerberg’s push to “follow children under the age of 13”.
“Yeah, it was bad the last time he said it,” said the employee.
A 2022 document detailing the company’s apps “milestones” showed an average of 40 minutes of time spent on the app for daily active Instagram users by 2023, rising to 46 minutes per day by 2026.
“These are not goals that we give to teams for doing their job,” said Zuckerberg. “The ways in which we measure the industry as a whole is whether what we are creating is going well.”
Meta’s lawyers have so far sought to discredit the concept of social media addiction, while at the same time casting doubt on whether Kaley actually has it.
Zuckerberg’s personal preferences are unrelated to the case, the company said.
“The question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram had a significant impact on the plaintiff’s mental health struggles,” said Meta spokeswoman Stephanie Otway. “The evidence will show that he faced many significant and difficult challenges before he used social media.”
Parents and family members embrace before entering Los Angeles Superior Court on February 18, 2026, for a civil trial over a lawsuit alleging social media giants intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive to children.
(Frederic J. Brown / AFP via Getty Images)
Regardless of the outcome of the case, Zuckerberg’s testimony has the potential to complicate Meta’s image and political ambitions, experts say.
“His appearance on the stand shows how public opinion has changed,” said David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University who studies political science. “That has a significant impact on Meta’s influence and technology’s significant impact on California politics.”
Indeed, the CEO is taking a stand as Meta redoubles its efforts to influence Golden State news.
The company has long been a key player in state and local races, pouring millions into ballot lines, state legislature and California gubernatorial candidates. It always costs money on both sides of the story, as well as their opponents in the same race.
Last year, the organization sunk $20 million into a new state PAC – Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across (Meta) California – with an eye on key 2026 races.
It also pledged $50 million to a joint project with Sacramento State University to redevelop the Capital Mall.
“They’re really upset about their money,” said McCuan. “They are not only obstructing the law, they were trying hard to change their image.”
That has the potential to backfire, he and others say.
“Voters are upset about entering the middle of the terms,” said the expert. “There comes a time when consumers, users, voters, are ready to throw the book at someone or something. Now you have a guy who can hold that anger.”
“If you think about how Meta uses Meta’s money, it’s a sign of Zuckerberg’s wallet to play in California or national politics,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project, a watchdog group.
A press camp has been set up outside the Spring Street Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, where Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify on Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2026.
(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)
At the same time Meta is expanding its political use, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan are aggressively redirecting their AI donations and scientific research.
“I’ve committed to giving almost all of my money to charity, and I’m focused on giving billions of dollars to scientific research, so the better Meta does, the more we’ll be able to do that kind of research,” Lanier said when he was inducted into his personal stake in the company.
A judge in a related court case has ruled that Zuckerberg cannot face his own lawsuit, putting his estimated $220 billion fortune outside of thousands of plaintiffs.
“Most of [my] The stock of Meta is under the control of CZI,” said a senior official who told the judges.
