‘He’s the guru’: Juror says Zuckerberg’s testimony sealed Meta’s fate in landmark social media addiction trial

Nevin Al Sukari - Sana'a - Meta CEO and Chairman Mark Zuckerberg arrives at Los Angeles Superior Court ahead of the social media trial tasked to determine whether social media giants deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive to children, in Los Angeles February 18, 2026. — AFP pic

LOS ANGELES, March 26 — A juror in the landmark social media addiction trial said Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony hurt Meta’s case, telling reporters after the verdict that the Facebook founder’s answers on the stand were inconsistent and did not go over well with the panel.

“Some of his testimony was not it — he changed it back and forth, and that didn’t sit well with us,” said the juror, who identified herself only as Victoria.

“He’s the guru, so to speak, and he should have really, really known what he was going to say to us jurors before he even said anything.”

Another juror, Matthew, said the deliberations — which stretched almost two weeks — reflected the weight of the evidence rather than any division on the panel.

“The issues that we were having was really just going through all the evidence,” he said.

“We were really thorough, going through each and every witness. What is the evidence they provided, in both directions, and ultimately, where did that lead to? So that’s what took so long.”

Victoria said the jury focused heavily on what protections the platforms had in place to shield the plaintiff known just as Kaley from harm, and on the long-term consequences for future young users.

“We looked at the history of everything that Kaley went through, and what was the process that these platforms had in place that was going to possibly prevent any harm,” she said.

On the US$3 million (RM12 million) compensatory award, Victoria said jurors worked from an average salary calculation, projecting the plaintiff’s earning potential over 40 years — down from an initial figure of 60 — and factoring in what kind of work she would realistically be able to hold, given what she had been through.

‘Not acceptable’ 

The jury was also motivated by a desire to send a message, she said.

“We wanted them to feel it. We wanted them to realise that this was not acceptable.”

Victoria said she had hoped the award might be structured as a trust, with the money distributed in portions over time, but ultimately followed the law as it was presented to them.

She described the jury as cohesive despite some disagreements, saying members respected one another even when they diverged.

“We had a good group, a very diverse group. We all got along very well, even with the individuals that didn’t agree with the majority of our decision — we respected each other.”

Victoria said the trial had been a revelation. “I learned a lot of things,” she said. “Moving forward, I probably am going to have some strong thoughts about social media, and probably stay off of it, as I have.” — AFP