In a closely watched courtroom showdown, Mark Zuckerberg this week defended the business practices of Meta Platforms, as the tech giant faces explosive claims that its social media platforms — Facebook and Instagram — are addictive and harmful to teenagers.
The high-stakes trial has reignited the global debate over whether social media is fueling a youth mental health crisis — or being unfairly scapegoated for deeper societal problems.
Under oath, Zuckerberg was pushed into what critics describe as uncomfortable and even contradictory positions. Among the most scrutinized claims: that “time spent” on Meta platforms is not a key business metric and that the company does not specifically seek teenage users.
To industry observers, those assertions raised eyebrows.
Meta, like most ad-driven tech firms, generates revenue largely through user engagement. The longer users stay on platforms, the more ads they see — and the more money the company earns. Critics argue that, regardless of courtroom positioning, teen engagement remains commercially valuable.
However, Meta maintains it has invested heavily in youth safety tools, parental controls, and content moderation in response to growing concerns.
The lawsuit reflects a broader anxiety shared by parents, educators, and policymakers worldwide: that heavy social media use may be linked to:
Rising anxiety and depression among teens
Sleep disruption
Body image issues
Cyberbullying exposure
Yet the scientific picture remains complex. While some studies suggest correlations between heavy use and poorer mental health outcomes, researchers continue to debate causation versus correlation.
Many experts caution against oversimplifying the issue.
The courtroom drama comes as governments move aggressively to regulate teen access to social media.
Australia has enacted a headline-grabbing ban on social media use for children under 16.
European nations including France and Portugal have passed or proposed restrictions aimed at tightening youth protections online.
Supporters say the measures are necessary to protect vulnerable users. Critics warn they may prove difficult to enforce — and risk missing the root causes of youth distress.
Even some critics of Big Tech caution against treating platforms as the sole driver of teen mental health struggles.
Social media may amplify existing pressures — from academic stress to economic anxiety and social isolation — but it operates within a much larger ecosystem of societal challenges.
Banning or restricting platforms, analysts say, could produce only modest improvements if underlying issues remain unaddressed.
The outcome of the Meta trial could shape future regulation, corporate liability, and platform design standards worldwide. But regardless of the verdict, the broader debate is far from settled.
If anything, Zuckerberg’s testimony has underscored a difficult reality: social media may contribute to teen struggles — but it is unlikely to be the single switch that, once flipped off, fixes the crisis.
One thing is certain: the battle over teens, tech, and responsibility is only just beginning.
