In a recent social media addiction trial in Los Angeles, Mehta attempted to block inquiries about Mark Zuckerberg’s substantial wealth, based on documents that came to light last Friday. The unsealed filings from Los Angeles County Superior Court reveal that the CEO of Meta sought to shield Zuckerberg from the same level of examination as other witnesses.
The plaintiffs claim that Zuckerberg, currently the fifth-richest person in the world with a net worth of $231 billion, disregards the negative effects his platforms have on teens to protect his financial interests.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys contended that “Mr. Mehta cannot consistently argue that these holdings… are somehow off-limits,” referring to Zuckerberg’s wealth.
The specific details of Mehta’s request regarding financial matters remain confidential, but the California Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl found that while questions about Zuckerberg’s earnings and stock would be permitted, inquiries into his entire net worth and asset types like real estate would not.
A Meta spokesperson stated that Zuckerberg’s financial situation is public information but irrelevant to the case.
During his testimony on February 18th, Zuckerberg still faced scrutiny regarding his finances. Mark Lanier, representing a California woman known as “KGM” whose mental health was allegedly harmed by social media, pointedly questioned Zuckerberg about his “spending habits.”
Zuckerberg, owner of a $300 million superyacht and expansive land in Hawaii, claimed that the success of Instagram allows for greater investment in beneficial initiatives through his foundation, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
In reply to Lanier’s probing about support for social media victims, Zuckerberg noted that it wasn’t the foundation’s focus. After attending the trial, he headed to Milan for Fashion Week with his wife.
Both Meta and Google are implicated in this significant case for intentionally designing addictive features without providing adequate safety measures. Plaintiffs argue that Zuckerberg’s wealth is crucial to issues the jury must address regarding liability and potential malice.
Lanier also recalled a 2024 Senate hearing where Zuckerberg was asked whether funds would be set aside for social media victims. Zuckerberg’s response, “I don’t mean those words in particular,” didn’t reassure many.
During that Senate session, Zuckerberg had made headlines by apologizing to families of social media victims, yet when pressed about compensating these families, he stated, “I don’t think so.”
Lanier further criticized Zuckerberg for his extensive media training and the media’s influence on protecting Meta’s bottom line. Zuckerberg humorously acknowledged his awkwardness with, “It’s well known that I’m very bad at this.”
This trial in Los Angeles is pivotal for the industry and could shape how similar cases are approached across the U.S. in the coming years, with the proceedings anticipated to last until March. Notably, a poll indicated that 86% of Americans hold Google accountable for the social media addiction crisis linked to anxiety, eating disorders, and even suicides among children.
