Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg Seeks to Avoid Testifying in Trial

Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, is attempting to bypass direct testimony in a high-profile trial centered around social media addiction, according to reports. Plaintiffs are expressing frustration over what they perceive as unfair treatment in this matter.

The parent company of Instagram is set to appear in federal court in California this summer as part of a multi-district lawsuit. This lawsuit consolidates over 2,400 individual cases filed by school districts, state attorneys general, and private individuals into a few key trials.

The initial case, brought forth by the Breathitt County School District in Kentucky, is scheduled for trial on June 12. During pretrial motions, Zuckerberg’s attorney argued that he should only need to testify in person once, with future cases relying on video recordings of his testimony in court.

Plaintiffs argue that this approach offers undue protections to Zuckerberg while undermining the rights of thousands of other litigants. Previn Warren, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, claimed that Zuckerberg is evading accountability with this strategy.

“Zuckerberg’s input shouldn’t be prioritized just because of his status,” Warren stated. “He has to face each plaintiff individually across these various cases.”

On Friday, the state attorney general overseeing the federal case permitted Zuckerberg to testify via a videotaped deposition, though Warren still aims for individual testimony from the school district involved.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is set to make a decision soon regarding Zuckerberg’s in-person testimony requirement. She also oversees other significant cases, including a lawsuit involving Elon Musk and OpenAI.

A spokesperson for Zuckerberg argued that requiring him to testify multiple times would be redundant, noting that he and other executives have already provided extensive testimony in similar matters. Critics, however, see this as a tactic for plaintiffs’ lawyers to gain attention.

Meta continues to grapple with a series of lawsuits claiming that its platform has contributed to a mental health crisis among teenagers. Critics liken this moment to a reckoning similar to that faced by the tobacco industry.

Recently, a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million for failing to protect children from sexual crimes. The next day, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google liable for $6 million for the impact of their platforms on one individual’s mental health.

Adam Zimmerman, a legal expert, suggested that obtaining live testimony from Zuckerberg could provide a strategic edge for plaintiffs. “Having CEOs answer questions in front of a jury can lead to more realistic assessments and potentially reveal new information,” he noted.

Zimmerman added that videotaped testimony is not unusual in mass litigation, pointing to parallels with cases involving opioids and vaping. Yet, whether a judge will side with Zuckerberg remains uncertain. He testified live in one trial, while appearing via video in another.

Howard Erickson, a law professor, remarked that live testimony from CEOs is often seen as essential in civil cases, allowing jurors to observe witness cross-examinations in real-time. However, he acknowledged that judges might prefer to streamline proceedings to alleviate undue pressures on defendants.

In their response to Zuckerberg’s legal team, Warren and other attorneys argued that video testimony lacks the same weight as live testimonies, stating, “Verdicts based on pre-recorded testimony don’t carry the same impact for litigants and the public.”

Moreover, Mehta’s attorneys have been working to shield Zuckerberg from extensive personal inquiries in ongoing lawsuits. Previously, they tried to prevent plaintiffs from exploring Zuckerberg’s significant wealth during the KGM trial.

KGM’s legal team contended that Mehta’s actions were aimed at protecting Zuckerberg from scrutiny that other witnesses face. Ultimately, a California judge ruled that while some questions about Zuckerberg’s compensation could be asked, inquiries regarding his total net worth and certain properties would be restricted.