Mark Zuckerberg testified in Los Angeles on February 18, 2026, that Instagram does not allow users under 13 and that internal time-spent figures shown at trial were management benchmarks, not employee targets. Lawyers for the plaintiff challenged those explanations with company documents. The testimony captured a dispute over Instagram’s rules and design; it did not establish that social media caused the plaintiff’s mental-health conditions or resolve the case.
What was the trial about?
The civil trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court concerned claims by a plaintiff identified as KGM in Associated Press and Reuters coverage, and as “Kaley” by ABC News. She alleged that early use of Instagram and YouTube contributed to depression and other mental-health struggles. Meta and Google denied the allegations and disputed that their platforms caused her conditions. Reuters reported that Snap and TikTok had settled with the plaintiff before trial, leaving Meta and Google as defendants.
Zuckerberg’s February 18 appearance was a rare courtroom examination of Instagram’s effects on young users. The accounts of the hearing describe allegations, testimony and documents presented by lawyers—not a final finding by the court.
Did Zuckerberg say Instagram targets kids?
No. Zuckerberg said Instagram did not allow users under 13. Plaintiff’s counsel challenged that statement with internal company material. Reuters reported that an exhibit shown in court included a 2018 presentation stating: “If we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.” That sentence was attributed to the presentation, not to Zuckerberg.
#1 Best Overall
Zuckerberg said age verification was difficult for app developers and argued that device makers could help enforce age limits. He also said Meta had discussed, but never launched, an Instagram version for children under 13. The exchange therefore put the company’s stated age rule alongside internal discussion of younger users; the presentation excerpt alone does not establish that Instagram formally targeted children below its minimum age.
What did the internal documents say about time spent?
Lawyers questioned Zuckerberg about whether Meta teams had goals to increase the time people spent on Instagram. Reporting described earlier company aims to increase time spent and a 2022 internal document with daily-active-user benchmarks of 40 minutes per day in 2023 and 46 minutes per day in 2026. These were company benchmarks in a document shown at trial, as reported by the Los Angeles Times and Reuters—not measurements of actual user behavior.
Zuckerberg said the later figures were milestones or a senior-management “gut check,” not goals assigned to employees. He disputed the suggestion that his testimony was inaccurate, telling Reuters, “If you are trying to say my testimony was not accurate, I strongly disagree with that.” The dispute is about how to interpret company metrics and their intended use; the figures by themselves do not prove that employees were instructed to maximize time or that the platform caused harm.
What did Zuckerberg say about addiction and causation?
In an exchange reported by the Associated Press, plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Lanier asked whether people tend to use something more if it is addictive. AP reported Zuckerberg’s answer: “I’m not sure what to say to that,” Zuckerberg said. “I don’t think that applies here.” That reported exchange reflects his response to counsel’s question; it is not a clinical conclusion about the plaintiff.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Zuckerberg maintained that existing scientific work had not proved that social media caused the plaintiff’s conditions. The plaintiff alleged that early social-media use contributed to her mental-health problems, while the companies pointed to other factors and described safety efforts. Those are competing positions in the case, not a resolved causal finding. Axios noted that researchers have not reached consensus on “social media addiction” as a clinical label and distinguished problematic use from an official diagnosis.
Does the testimony prove social media caused depression?
No. The testimony coverage establishes that the plaintiff made a causal allegation and that the companies denied it; it does not establish that Instagram or YouTube caused her depression or other conditions. Nor does Zuckerberg’s testimony settle the broader scientific debate about problematic social-media use or the meaning of “addiction.” The accounts of this hearing do not report a final court ruling on those questions.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Was Zuckerberg trying to play it safe?
“Tried to play it safe” is an interpretation of his courtroom manner, not a finding about his intent. The reported exchanges support describing some answers as cautious or defensive: he emphasized Instagram’s under-13 rule, characterized later time figures as management benchmarks rather than employee goals, and pushed back on counsel’s characterization of his testimony. Those answers can be read as careful defenses of Meta’s position, but the reporting does not establish why he answered that way.
The full certified transcript and exhibit record are not reflected in the cited event coverage. The quotations here are limited to wording reported by the Associated Press and Reuters, and should be understood as excerpts from their accounts rather than a complete court record.
What happens beyond this testimony?
Reuters placed the case within a broader wave of U.S. litigation concerning alleged harms to young users. Snap and TikTok had settled with this plaintiff before the trial, according to Reuters; those settlements and Zuckerberg’s testimony do not resolve other cases. The February 18 reporting documents what was argued and said in court that day, not the later outcome of this case.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
