Big Tech on Trial: Progress Made Possible by Courage

We don’t yet know how the LA tech accountability trial will end. No matter the outcome, parents, advocates, and experts pushing for safer technology have already achieved something significant: the world is finally paying attention. Archewell Philanthropies is proud to have stood with and supported their stories.

Today, the largest technology companies find themselves under unprecedented scrutiny. Their products, their design choices, and their impact on young people are being examined not just in public debate, but now in a court of law. And regardless of any single verdict, one truth is already clear: these companies are on trial in the court of history. This is the first case of its kind, but it will not be the last.

For years, these companies resisted transparency and pointed to a supposed lack of “definitive proof” whenever people raised alarms about harm. When whistleblowers raised alarms about internal practices, Meta leadership said the claims were “misleading” and taken out of context. But the disclosures in this case have set the record straight . Internal emails, strategy decks, and research—documents the public was never meant to see—are now evidence. They reveal not only what these companies built, but what they knew.

Below are some of the most staggering things we’ve learned so far—facts that show why this trial matters far beyond a single verdict:

• Mark Zuckerberg was forced to testify under oath in front of a jury
  For the first time, Meta’s founder had to answer in a courtroom—not in a press interview or a tightly scripted hearing—whether his platforms were designed to be addictive and harmful to young people. The sight of grieving families just feet away as he was questioned about design choices and safety decisions is a historic break from business as usual.

• Internal documents show deliberate strategies to hook young users
  Unsealed strategy memos and internal decks revealed that teams at Meta and YouTube carefully tracked engagement among “tweens” and teens and built explicit plans to increase it. Documents shown in court reveal Meta tracked and celebrated rising time‑spent on Instagram—up from 40 to 46 minutes a day—while strategizing how to capture and keep young users online longer. A 2015 internal email from Mark Zuckerberg, presented at trial, set a goal of increasing users’ time spent on the platform by 12%, directly undercutting his earlier testimony to Congress that teams were not given time‑spent targets. These weren’t accidents or side effects; they were central goals.

• Meta knew under‑13 use was widespread, but it continued anyway
  Internal materials showed that millions of children under 13 were using Instagram even as the company publicly claimed that kids that young were not allowed on the platform. An internal 2018 Meta document estimated that “in 2015, there were 4 million people under age 13 on Instagram,” representing “30 percent of all 10‑12‑year‑olds in the U.S.” Age screening was acknowledged internally as a serious issue, yet meaningful fixes were delayed for years while underage use continued.

• Emails talked openly about “getting tweens hooked”
  One internal Meta strategy memo put it bluntly: “If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.” These are the company’s own words, now part of the public record. These are not activist slogans. They are the company’s own words, now read aloud in court and preserved in the record.

• Internal research linked heavy use to mental health harms—and wasn’t fully shared
  Meta’s own studies found that when some teens reduced or stopped using certain platforms, anxiety, depression, and loneliness went down. Yet this research was not shared with the public in a way that matched its implications, and leaders repeatedly suggested there was no clear evidence of a connection. In this case, records showed that the young woman at the center of the trial once spent 16 hours on Instagram in a single day and testified that being away from her phone made her “scream and cry” and feel like “a huge part of me was missing.” When Meta leadership Adam Mosseri was asked about that 16‑hour day, he answered, “That sounds like problematic use,” but insisted he does not believe people can be “clinically addicted” to social media, comparing it to binge‑watching a Netflix show.

• Engagement was repeatedly prioritized over safety
  Internal plans and archetypes emphasized time spent and repeat use—even for vulnerable users—while straightforward safety changes that could have dramatically reduced harmful interactions were resisted, watered down, or pushed aside. Over and over, the numbers that mattered most were engagement metrics. 

• CEOs and executives were challenged on their true intent
  On the stand, executives were confronted with the gap between internal evidence and years of public messaging about safety, well‑being, and connection. Their defensive, sometimes evasive answers stood in stark contrast to the confident, reassuring statements they had made to Congress and the public.

• Families’ stories are now part of the historical record, not just private pain
  Grieving parents and young people have testified about self‑harm, addiction‑like use, and lives reshaped by design choices they never fully understood or consented to. By speaking out, they have turned private tragedy into public evidence—evidence that will influence policy, regulation, and public opinion for years to come.

Taken together, these revelations show why this moment matters to everyone, not just to the families directly involved. This trial is already a turning point: it has forced some of the most powerful companies on earth to reveal what’s behind the curtain and to answer, in public and on the record, for choices that shaped an entire generation’s daily life.