Inside the courtroom: Grieving parents confront Mark Zuckerberg over their loss

In February, a group of about a dozen parents gathered anxiously in a dimly lit hallway outside a courtroom, clutching paper tickets. Their eyes were fixed on a gray tote bag held by a court staff member, who would draw tickets to determine who could enter. Many wore butterfly clips on their bags and coats, a tribute to the children they had lost, deaths they attribute to their kids’ online experiences. This was a poignant gesture meant to avoid influencing the jury, which was tasked with deciding whether social media companies could be held accountable for the harms these parents believe their children faced. If a parent’s ticket number was called, they would secure one of the 15 public seats to witness the jury firsthand, and perhaps more importantly, to see Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who was scheduled to testify that day.

Among the parents waiting for their chance to enter were advocates like Mary Rodee and Lori Schott, who traveled to witness a pivotal social media case. While the focus was on the allegedly addictive designs of platforms like Instagram and YouTube, the parents were driven by a broader array of issues stemming from their children’s tragic deaths linked to online challenges and content. Some had even filed their own lawsuits against these companies, with more trials on the horizon.

As the lottery unfolded, excitement filled the air when a number was called. Reactions varied from gasps to cheers, with parents celebrating each win until they were reminded to keep it down. Then, unexpectedly, Zuckerberg made his way through the crowd, flanked by security. His presence silenced the room as the realization of who was passing by set in. Moments later, he turned the corner toward the courtroom, and chatter resumed.

Rodee, whose son Riley took his life at 15 after being targeted for sextortion on Facebook, later recalled recognizing Zuckerberg by his distinctive curly hair. “One thing that really gets to me is that curly hair,” she expressed. “Riley’s curls were adorable, and I just want to shave his head because he doesn’t deserve it.”

In the weeks leading up to this moment, a Los Angeles jury had been hearing a case from a 20-year-old woman known as K.G.M., or Kaley. She testified that the addictive nature of social media kept her online “all day long,” leading to suicidal thoughts and body image issues. Meta and Google are defending against claims that their platforms were designed to hook users like Kaley, contributing to mental health struggles. They argue that their goal is to create positive user experiences and that other factors in Kaley’s life played a role in her challenges. Snap and TikTok were also named in the case but settled before trial. This case is the first of several that could set a precedent for how thousands of similar lawsuits are handled, with significant implications for the companies’ business models.

Jury deliberations are set to begin soon, and the length of the process is uncertain. The jury must determine if the companies were negligent in their product designs and if that negligence contributed to Kaley’s mental health issues. If they rule in her favor, they will also consider damages. While a win for Kaley would mean financial compensation, Matthew Bergman, the founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center representing her, emphasized that the broader goal is to make it financially burdensome for these companies to prioritize safety over profit.

Parent advocates like Rodee and Schott understand that a victory in court is not guaranteed. Regardless of the outcome, they aim to sway public opinion. Throughout the trial, they shared their children’s stories with reporters and even with the lead attorney, Mark Lanier. “We need awareness. We need public pressure on our politicians to help save these American children,” said Annie McGrath, whose son Griffin died at 13 after attempting a choking challenge he learned from a YouTube video.

Kaley’s case hinges on convincing the jury that social media platforms can be held liable for their design choices, even when user-generated content is involved, which is typically protected under Section 230. If the jury finds Meta and Google liable for Kaley’s harm, it could pave the way for a broader settlement for over 1,500 similar cases, including those filed by parents present in the courtroom. However, many lawsuits have failed due to Section 230 protections, although some have succeeded, like a 2021 case where Snap was sued for features that allegedly encouraged reckless driving.

Meta and YouTube have denied the allegations in Kaley’s case. “We strongly disagree with these claims and are confident the evidence will demonstrate our commitment to supporting young people,” said a Meta spokesperson. The company has launched a site focused on teen safety to counter the allegations. “Ensuring a safer, healthier experience for young users has always been a priority for us,” a YouTube spokesperson stated.

Many parents were eager to see Zuckerberg face questioning. Unlike his previous congressional testimonies, where he was bombarded with rapid-fire questions, this time he was in front of a jury. “Now you’re in front of jurors who can’t be bought off,” said Brandy Roberts, whose daughter Englyn died by suicide at 14 after allegedly emulating an Instagram video.

While nothing Zuckerberg could say would bring their children back, the parents were determined to keep pressure on platforms to implement new safety measures and educate others about the potential dangers their kids face online. The trial has provided a rare opportunity to unveil information that the companies would prefer to keep hidden. For instance, documents revealed during Zuckerberg’s testimony showed that Meta had lifted a temporary ban on certain Instagram filters that could alter users’ appearances, despite internal concerns that it could promote body dysmorphia among teenage girls. “We were one of the families who were on top of things,” Roberts said. “We monitored usage and had no idea about the internal documents being presented in court.”

Parents expressed that the mere fact the trial was happening felt like a victory. “It’s surreal to think we’ve reached this point after fighting for so long,” said Amy Neville, whose son Alexander died at 14 from fentanyl poisoning allegedly facilitated by Snapchat. “To have this moment that we were told could never happen is overwhelming.”

“I keep saying things are oxymoronic,” Rodee reflected, noting the mix of “justice and injustice.” “Riley’s never coming back. What do I really think can happen to this guy?” she said of Zuckerberg. “This is a huge step. These documents in front of a jury are what they laughed at us about when our kids died.”

Regardless of whether they secured a seat inside, the parent advocates maximized their time to raise awareness. Before the lottery system was implemented, parents camped out overnight in the rain to see Instagram head Adam Mosseri, sharing stories and playing cards to pass the time. They also participated in demonstrations, including unveiling a memorial of large smartphones featuring their children’s images and painting the names of kids allegedly harmed by Snapchat on the street outside the company’s LA office. Roberts recalled a moment of silence during one event that hit hard, realizing that while they were finally at the courthouse, their children were not there to witness it.

All the parents described a strong sense of community and shared understanding. Many had informal agreements about who should get priority for courthouse seats based on their own cases or the specific platforms involved. “Now everybody’s kid is my kid, especially among my grief besties,” Rodee said. “That’s another oxymoron, right? We’d all give up these friendships to have our kids back.”

Some parents found minor satisfaction in the fact that Zuckerberg had to go through the same metal detectors as everyone else. Many had seen him before during his 2024 Senate testimony, where he turned to apologize to parents holding pictures of their lost children. A few described that moment as “fake.”

Seeing him in court was both familiar and different. “I’m sure it was a new million-dollar suit, but he looked exactly the same,” Rodee noted. “He’s short,” McGrath observed.

Deb Schmill, whose daughter Becca died at 18 from fentanyl poisoning linked to social media, was desperate to get into the courtroom on the day of Zuckerberg’s testimony but was disappointed when her ticket wasn’t called. “I was almost in tears,” she admitted. Still, being close to the CEO felt different than when she was in the Senate committee room. “Hopefully, I’ll never have to be that close to him again,” she said. “It’s just strange to see the person whose decisions impacted your child.”

Parents endured the discomfort of the trial to ensure Zuckerberg was aware of their presence. “I wanted him to look at me,” Schott said, whose daughter Annalee died by suicide at 18 after struggling with body image issues exacerbated by social media. “I wanted him to know that parents are here. I hope they realized, ‘Oh shit, the parents are here.’”

For some, the hardest part was being away from the trial. “I couldn’t be here last week, and I was not in good shape at home,” McGrath said. She showed me a reminder on her phone that pops up daily to report choking game videos to YouTube, a task that takes her about 10 minutes to find and report around 50 videos. “I don’t think anyone ever looks at them.”

Brandy and Toney Roberts attended to raise awareness about the dangers they believe their daughter Englyn faced on social media. “Being from a small town in Louisiana, we don’t want our daughter forgotten,” Brandy said. “We want to show that this issue doesn’t discriminate by age or religion. It’s harming all our kids. We want to put faces to names and remind these Big Tech CEOs that our children existed and mattered to us.”

The day before Zuckerberg’s testimony, Lanier, the lead attorney, walked among the mothers, holding their hands and asking about their children’s experiences. Throughout the week, several parents shared stories about their kids: Becca “gave the best hugs,” Schmill said. Schott described Annalee as a “little rural country girl” who loved community service. Rodee recalled Riley’s playful antics, like hiding to scare her or blasting music in the car while dancing.

“I pray for your comfort,” Lanier said, closing his eyes as he stood in a circle with the parents, holding hands and nodding in agreement. “And Lord, make our team valiant to fight for justice and for the hearts and souls of so many kids who are cast aside for profit.”

Court was dismissed early that day as both sides paused the schedule to see if a juror hospitalized that morning would return. The attorneys were concerned about a “run on the jury,” where more jurors might seek to leave once they witnessed the high-profile testimony.

The trial had already faced several setbacks, including a pause in jury selection due to Meta’s lead attorney suffering a concussion and a venue change due to water damage in the courthouse. These issues disrupted the original schedule for key executives, including Zuckerberg and YouTube’s CEO, who ultimately did not testify.

On the day of Zuckerberg’s testimony, the courtroom was packed with lawyers, the public, and press, making it hard to imagine how much smaller it would have felt with Snap and TikTok involved. Lanier’s engaging style was evident during his questioning, contrasting sharply with Zuckerberg’s straightforward demeanor, which occasionally seemed to irritate the Meta CEO.

Lanier recapped Zuckerberg’s earlier testimony in his Southern drawl, pointing out that while Meta claimed to have stopped setting goals to increase user time, they still had milestones aimed at boosting product usage. Zuckerberg accused Lanier of “mischaracterizing” his statements, insisting that “milestones” were merely internal checks shared with leadership, while employees received goals that no longer included increasing time spent.

When questioning more amiable witnesses, Lanier included personal touches, asking about their hobbies and keeping the jury engaged. Unlike a bench trial, where a judge is already informed on the law, attorneys must ensure their messages are clear and relatable to laypeople. After the judge denied his request to adjust the schedule, Lanier ramped up his energy, humorously introducing a data science expert with a promise of “riveting math.”

To present evidence, Lanier used notes and sketches with an overhead projector, reminiscent of elementary school presentations. He introduced Boland, who criticized Meta and described the so-called “Zuckerberg Mandate,” illustrating it with a simple road map of the testimony’s trajectory.

In their defense, the companies argued that other factors in Kaley’s life contributed to her mental health struggles and pointed out that social media addiction isn’t a recognized clinical diagnosis. Mosseri described excessive app usage as “problematic use,” while YouTube’s VP of engineering testified that endless scrolling would indicate a failure in their recommendation systems.

During their defense, the companies sought to undermine any claims of a causal link between their services and Kaley’s issues, calling witnesses to highlight offline problems she faced. Google claimed she spent an average of only 30 minutes a day on YouTube.

While social media addiction isn’t officially recognized, groups like the American Psychiatric Association acknowledge that “problematic and compulsive use” can be addressed through therapy. The impact of social media use is nuanced, with moderate use sometimes linked to positive outcomes. During the trial, compulsive social media use was compared to gambling addiction, a behavioral addiction defined in the DSM-5.

Parents expressed concern about their children’s attachment to their phones and the hidden dangers they encountered. Schott recalled locking her daughter’s phone in the car to keep it away from her. Julianna Arnold shared how her daughter Coco, who died from fentanyl poisoning after trying to buy drugs through Instagram, would fight her for the phone, as if it were essential for her to sleep.

While parents hold social media platforms accountable for their children’s harm, they also recognize their own responsibilities. “Everyone says it’s the parent’s job,” Schott noted. “Of course it is, but I did everything I could. Playing Whac-a-Mole with her phone and her desire to be on social media was beyond anything I’ve ever seen.” They want to educate other parents about the risks and encourage them to take proactive steps. “Parents think, ‘My kid would never do that.’ For Griffin, ‘My kid would never choke himself,’” McGrath said. “Oh yes, they would … The prefrontal cortex isn’t fully developed until 25, which affects impulse control and rational thinking.”

The jury may not need to determine if kids’ behavior constitutes clinical addiction. To succeed, Kaley’s lawyers only need to convince them that the products caused significant harm and that Meta and Google were negligent in preventing it or failed to warn users of potential risks. “Addiction is one type of danger,” said Neama Rahmani, a personal injury attorney not involved in the cases. However, it’s a major focus here because proving causation for other types of mental harm is more complex. “Many people have mental health issues for various reasons,” Rahmani added. Jess Nall, an attorney uninvolved in the cases, stated that while the jury doesn’t need to find clinical addiction as a legal element, the plaintiffs’ main argument hinges on proving something akin to it.

One Meta product did pose a clear risk to the legal process: its camera-equipped Ray-Ban glasses. After Zuckerberg’s entourage was seen wearing them, Judge Carolyn Kuhl instructed the courtroom that no one should wear them and to delete any recordings. The issue of potential recordings wasn’t limited to the glasses; Kuhl removed Bergman, Kaley’s attorney, from the steering committee for the broader group of cases after he recorded an interview with the BBC from inside the courthouse, violating court policy.

As the day progressed, Zuckerberg did not acknowledge the parents in the courtroom. He appeared to deliberately look straight ahead as he entered and left the witness stand without ceremony. A few parents believed they caught his eye, but most felt confident he sensed their presence.

Zuckerberg’s testimony marked just the beginning of a lengthy battle. This case alone has spanned five weeks, and since his appearance, the jury has heard from YouTube’s VP of engineering, a former Facebook employee, and Kaley herself. Once this jury concludes deliberations, the court will move on to the next case in the series of bellwether trials.

While some question why the parents continue to share their stories, Toney Roberts expressed, “We live it every day anyway. If it helps another family avoid this situation, or prevents another child from suffering, we hope to bond together and raise awareness, as we have done across the world.”