“If we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens,” according to internal Meta (Instagram) documents from 2018 disclosed in court today in Los Angeles.

Reuters

Today, Mark Zuckerberg took the stand in what could become the most consequential trial yet over social media’s impact on young people’s mental health.

During questioning, an internal Instagram document from 2018 was read aloud in court:

“If we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.”

In other words: if you want teenage users, you reach them at 10, 11, 12. The quote was presented as evidence that, internally, Meta viewed pre-teens as a strategic entry point — despite its public position that children under 13 are not allowed on the platform. Under oath, Zuckerberg said enforcing age limits is “very difficult” and acknowledged that many users lie about their age. He denied that Meta deliberately targets children.

But jurors were also shown internal documents indicating:
– significant numbers of 10–12-year-olds were already using Instagram
– company discussions about increasing time spent on the app
– and strategic prioritization of young users

Plaintiff’s lawyers argued that Meta’s strategy was top-down: get users on the platform as early as possible — and then keep them there through design features such as beauty filters, infinite scroll and autoplay. Meta maintains the lawsuit oversimplifies complex mental health issues and says user well-being has always been part of its considerations.

According to Bloomberg and other US media reports, Zuckerberg testified that enforcing Instagram’s minimum age of 13 is “very difficult,” acknowledging under oath that many users lie about their age when signing up.

That admission sat uneasily alongside the internal documents presented in court — documents suggesting the company was well aware that younger users were already on the platform, and in some cases discussing how to grow engagement among them.

The legal question now facing the jury is not simply whether teenagers spend too much time online. It is whether Meta designed its platforms in ways that deliberately maximized engagement among young users while publicly maintaining that children under 13 were not permitted.

For years, tech companies have relied on Section 230 as a legal shield. This case takes a different approach. It treats Instagram less as a neutral platform and more as a product — one whose design choices may carry consequences.

Zuckerberg insisted that user well-being has always been a priority. But today’s testimony once again highlighted the gap between Meta’s public assurances and what internal documents reveal about growth and engagement strategy.

Still, today’s testimony once again exposed the tension between Meta’s public statements about age restrictions and safety — and what internal documents reveal about growth, engagement and competition.