Big Tech is having its Big Tobacco moment.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, a key architect of the modern digital world, faced a jury for the first time over claims that social media harms young people.
His testimony follows whistleblower Frances Haugen's 2021 revelations that Meta knowingly ignored the harm its platforms caused. This trial raises the stakes.
The lawsuit, filed by a 20-year-old woman, questions whether social media companies can still claim innocence as mounting evidence suggests teenagers are deliberately targeted with addictive features.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives to the Los Angeles Superior Court at United States Court House on February 18, 2026 in Los Angeles, California. Photo: Getty.
Google's YouTube is also a defendant, while Snapchat and TikTok settled with the plaintiff for undisclosed sums . If Meta and YouTube are found guilty, floodgates will open to thousands of similar lawsuits currently winding their way through the US courts.
Appearing in court on 18 February, Zuckerberg defended his company against damning emails from 2013 to 2022. These messages revealed that Meta executives prioritised boosting teenage users' time spent on their platforms.
In 2015, Zuckerberg wrote to executives about a goal to see a "12% increase" in screen time among teens. A 2017 email stated, "Mark has decided the top priority for the company is teens."
"IG [Instagram] is a drug … We're basically pushers," one researcher wrote in an email, stating that Instagram chief Adam Mosseri "freaked out" when they had raised the topic of dopamine hits from social media usage.
Bereaved parents Deb Schmill, Judy Hogg,Toney Roberts and Brandy Roberts listen as a lawyer speaks to the press outside the Los Angeles Superior Court at United States Court House on February 18, 2026. Photo: Getty.
But in questioning last week, Mosseri argued that even 16-hours of Instagram use in a single day does not show addiction.
"I think it's important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use," Mosseri testified in the LA court .
Tech giants have historically argued that users and parents have the tools to effectively manage their own screen time, despite a growing body of scientific research which suggests push notifications, infinite scrolling, and autoplay are specifically engineered to bypass human willpower.
Zuckerberg maintains that Meta's internal emails were "mischaracterised" and proved only high-engagement, not addiction.
"If something is of value, people tend to use it more," he said.
'Like a drug'
Clinical psychologist and Macquarie University adjunct fellow Dr Danielle Einstein likens Zuckerberg's defence to the tactics used by Big Tobacco in the 1990s tobacco trials.
For decades, tobacco companies denied that smoking was harmful or addictive, despite vast internal evidence to the contrary.
"Zuckerberg is clutching at the same straws," Einstein says.
"Instagram is like a drug. It zombifies the brain. Social media platforms are clearly designed to be addictive, for both adults and children.
"That's what the attention and anxiety economy is built on."
Social media platforms rely on intermittent reinforcement – the same mechanism that makes slot machines so addictive: "Notifications, likes, messages, and videos arrive unpredictably, creating a powerful dopamine-driven loop. The device itself becomes a conditioned stimulus. Over time, the cover of a phone or a screen light is enough to trigger arousal and the urge to check."
This conditioning can spread beyond the phone itself. Bedrooms, desks, and even certain times of day – such as bedtime –become cues that can prompt compulsive 'doomscrolling'.
Adolescents, whose prefrontal cortexes are not fully developed, are especially vulnerable.
The plaintiff in the US trial began using social media at the age of six , and said her early exposure spiralled into addiction. Meta countered by claiming scientific research does not conclusively prove addiction, highlighting its multi-billion-dollar investment in child safety features as evidence it has not been negligent.
However, Meta was forced to acknowledge that less than 1.1 per cent of Instagram's teenage users utilise the app's screen-time reminders. Einstein notes the rise of social media has also correlated with a troubling drop in emotional resilience.
"When you can instantly suppress feelings of uncertainty by calling, texting, or scrolling, it undermines your ability to manage anxiety," Einstein says. " The issue of how we manage uncertainty cuts across almost every mental health disorder."
She also highlights a growing reluctance among young people to engage in real-life interactions.
"It's easy for teens to lose the desire for in-person conversations because they're more challenging," Einstein says. "Although when they're communicating online, they don't feel any less lonely than when they're actually alone."
The ripple effects are severe: Increasing anxiety, shorter attention spans, more appearance concerns, eating disorders, intolerance for boredom, and the devastating impact of cyberbullying.
"They're losing the ability to calm themselves without a screen. It's a mental health disaster for our youth," Einstein warns.
Why a minimum age for social media?
A 20-year-old California woman sued Meta and YouTube, accusing them of building addictive platforms that cause harm to children. Photo: Getty.
Dr Einstein contributed to the development of Australia's under-16 social media age restriction, which has drawn global attention and prompted similar legislation for consideration in the UK, Spain, France, and India.
"This isn't about banning the internet," she stresses.
"It's about ensuring platforms take responsibility for the age at which users sign up."
Although 13 was once seen as an acceptable minimum age for social media use, Einstein says that platforms failed to implement effective age verification.
"We need stronger measures. No safeguard a platform puts in place will ever be enough."
Early feedback from Australia is promising. "Parents are encouraging younger children to delay their use of social media, while some teens aged 14 and 15 are voluntarily cutting back," Einstein says.
"Some will always find ways to bypass restrictions, but we're already seeing signs of positive cultural change."
