Mark Zuckerberg Grilled On Usage Goals and Underage Users At California Trial
Source: Slashdot
Testimony Overview
Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg faced a barrage of questions about his company’s efforts to secure users’ time and attention at a landmark trial in Los Angeles. In sworn testimony, Zuckerberg said Meta’s growth targets “reflect an aim to give users something useful, not addict them,” and that the company does not seek to attract children as users.
Growth Targets and Time Spent
Plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Lanier repeatedly asked Zuckerberg about internal communications discussing targets for how much time users spend with Meta’s products. Lanier presented an email from 2015 in which the CEO stated his goal for 2016 was to increase users’ time spent by 12 %.
“We used to give teams goals on time spent and we don’t do that anymore because I don’t think that’s the best way to do it,” Zuckerberg said on the witness stand.
Underage Users
Lanier also asked about documents showing Meta employees were aware of children under 13 using Meta’s apps. Zuckerberg reiterated the company’s policy that children under 13 are not allowed on the platform and are removed when identified.
Lanier showed an internal Meta email from 2015 estimating 4 million children under 13 were using Instagram, which would represent roughly 30 % of all kids aged 10‑12 in the United States.
In response to a question about his ownership stake in Meta—valued at more than $200 billion—Zuckerberg said he has pledged to donate most of his money to charity:
“The better that Meta does, the more money I will be able to invest in science research.”
Beauty Filters
Zuckerberg was asked about his decision to continue allowing beauty filters after 18 experts said they were harmful to teenage girls. Meta temporarily banned the filters on Instagram in 2019 and commissioned a panel of experts to review the feature; all 18 concluded the filters were damaging.
Meta later lifted the ban but stated it did not create any filters of its own nor recommend them to users. Zuckerberg explained:
“We shouldn’t create that content ourselves and we shouldn’t recommend it to people.”
He added that restricting the filters could be seen as overbearing and argued that some experts viewed such bans as a suppression of free speech.
By focusing on the design of Meta’s apps rather than the content posted in them, the case seeks to navigate around longstanding legal doctrine that largely shields social‑media companies from litigation. At times, the case has veered into content‑related questions, prompting Meta’s lawyers to object.
Sources