Zuckerberg lied about concern for child safety, Meta whistleblower testifies at landmark trial
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
A landmark federal trial against Meta concluded its opening phase with damaging testimony from whistleblower Arturo Béjar, a former Facebook safety engineer, who told jurors the company operated a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to child safety despite being repeatedly warned about harm to young users. Béjar said Mark Zuckerberg created a "false and misleading impression" of Facebook's commitment to young people, recalling a 2021 email he sent the CEO detailing constant reports of harmful content and damage to teenage wellbeing, sent shortly after Zuckerberg publicly claimed the firm did not prioritise profit over safety. He said he never received a reply.
The case, brought by attorneys general from 29 US states in Oakland, California, alleges Meta knowingly designed addictive products that harmed children and unlawfully collected data from under-13s. Béjar, who briefed Zuckerberg on safety issues roughly 100 times, testified that Meta's platforms recommended content from sexual predators and violent, graphic material to young users. Meta denies the allegations, with its lawyer arguing the company has built tools to address social media struggles and has disabled more than a million underage accounts; further witnesses, including Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri, are expected during the trial, which is set to last at least six weeks and could expose Meta to damages of up to $200bn.
- Whistleblower says Zuckerberg misled public on child safety commitment
- 29 US states allege Meta built addictive, harmful products for children
- Trial could last six weeks; damages could reach $200bn
New here? Start with this
Meta, the company behind Facebook and Instagram, is at the centre of a major US legal case over how it handled child safety on its platforms. Attorneys general from 29 states are suing the company, arguing it knowingly designed features that hooked young users and broke rules on collecting data from children under 13. The trial, taking place in Oakland, California, is expected to run for six weeks.
A key figure giving evidence is Arturo Béjar, a former Meta engineer who worked on safety issues and says he raised concerns with chief executive Mark Zuckerberg directly, including around 100 briefings over time. His testimony centres on whether Meta's leadership knew about harms to young users, such as exposure to harmful or predatory content, while publicly presenting a different picture of the company's priorities.
Meta disputes the claims, saying it has taken steps such as building safety tools and removing large numbers of underage accounts. Zuckerberg and Instagram's head, Adam Mosseri, are both expected to appear as witnesses as the trial continues, making this one of the most closely watched legal challenges yet to how social media companies treat younger users.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of the states' case argue that internal warnings ignored over years, echoed by a credible insider who says he raised concerns to leadership roughly a hundred times, point to a pattern of knowing neglect rather than mere oversight. They contend that when a company's public reassurances to parents and regulators diverge sharply from what its own safety staff were reporting internally, the public has a right to know, and that only rigorous legal scrutiny can establish whether growth and engagement were knowingly prioritised over the wellbeing of children who cannot fully protect themselves online.
The case against
Meta and its defenders would argue that operating a platform used by billions inevitably generates a constant stream of difficult reports, and that the existence of internal debate or dissent is a sign of a functioning safety culture, not evidence of concealment or bad faith. They would point to concrete steps taken, such as removing over a million suspected underage accounts and building tools for parents and teens, as proof of genuine and ongoing investment in safety, and caution that hindsight-driven litigation risks punishing a company for the inherent difficulty of moderating content at global scale rather than for any deliberate wrongdoing.