Imagine the chief executive of one of the world’s most powerful companies sitting in a courtroom answering questions about children. For years, Silicon Valley treated such scrutiny as unthinkable. Now Mark Zuckerberg of Meta faces a jury in a case that could redraw the boundaries of corporate responsibility in the digital age.
The plaintiff, a now 20-year-old Californian, says Instagram and YouTube hooked her from early childhood and worsened her depression and suicidal thoughts. Her lawyer has called it “addicting the brains of children” and cited internal research showing that vulnerable users were most at risk. Parallels with Big Tobacco have surfaced as internal communications revealed engineers comparing Instagram to a drug and admitting that engagement was driven by keeping users returning. If jurors accept the argument that platforms were designed to exploit young users, the legal shield that has protected tech companies for decades could face a serious test.
The scale of the backlash reflects a wider shift. More than forty American states have filed lawsuits against Meta, accusing it of contributing to a youth mental health crisis. Families, school districts and local governments have joined the legal offensive. Experts in the California proceedings have argued that compulsive use, rather than total time online, is most strongly linked to anxiety, depression and sleep disruption among adolescents. Studies presented in court suggest that reward systems triggered by notifications and scrolling resemble mechanisms associated with gambling behaviour.
This debate has moved beyond the United States. France is moving to restrict social media access for children under fifteen. Australia and Spain have introduced comparable measures. Legislators in several countries are examining duty of care laws and algorithm oversight.
The deeper question concerns power. A handful of corporations shape attention, aspiration and identity for billions. Their products influence how childhood unfolds across continents. Regulation remains fragmented and slow. Democratic institutions are still struggling to keep pace with systems that evolve faster than their oversight.
Pakistan cannot afford to treat this reckoning as a distant theatre. The country’s young population is deeply embedded in the same platforms. Mental health services remain scarce while public debate stands constrained by stigma and denial. A failure to engage will leave the next generation exposed to harms that others are only beginning to confront.
The trial in California will end one way or the other. Whether the verdict favours corporations or families, a precedent is already emerging. Technology is no longer beyond moral scrutiny. The next phase will test whether societies can translate anger into law. *