Meta Trial: Whistleblower Béjar Says Zuckerberg Ignored Safe

Former Meta Engineer Details Culture of Neglect in Oakland Federal Court

A landmark child safety trial against Meta Platforms intensified this week as Arturo Béjar, a former employee turned whistleblower, delivered damning testimony about the company’s approach to protecting young users. Béjar testified in federal court in Oakland, California, on Wednesday, charging that CEO Mark Zuckerberg created a corporate culture that made it practically impossible to deliver features addressing wellbeing and safety issues for children on Facebook and Instagram. The engineer, who worked on safety issues at Meta for eight years, serves as a linchpin witness for a consortium of states led by California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey in their lawsuit against the social media giant.

Béjar described a corporate environment where employees obsessed over user numbers and consistently pushed safety to the side. He stated that only Zuckerberg possessed the authority to change that dynamic, but the CEO failed to act. California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill encapsulated the states’ allegations in stark terms during her opening statement on Tuesday, describing Meta’s business model with four simple words: “hook” the users, “hold” them for as long as possible, “harvest” their data, and “hide” the truth from the public. She emphasized that the impact was especially severe for children.

Whistleblower Challenges Zuckerberg’s Public Statements

During his second day of testimony Wednesday, Béjar directly challenged the veracity of Zuckerberg‘s public statements about company priorities. The former engineer, who interacted with the CEO dozens of times, took particular issue with a widely-shared Facebook post Zuckerberg made in 2021 following revelations by another whistleblower, Frances Haugen. Haugen had shared internal documents with The Wall Street Journal that highlighted risks to the mental health of teens on Meta’s platforms.

In that 2021 post, Zuckerberg wrote that it was “just not true” that Meta prioritizes profit over safety and wellbeing. Béjar testified unequivocally that this statement did not reflect reality. “Based on my experience at Meta, that is not an accurate statement,” he said from the witness stand. The whistleblower noted that he had personally reviewed several internal Meta studies that surveyed users, including teenagers, about their experiences with harmful content on the platforms and documented negative feelings resulting from platform use.

States Allege Deliberate Design to Addict Young Users

The lawsuit alleges that Meta violated both consumer protection laws and child data protection statutes while deceiving the public about the risks its platforms posed to minors. State attorneys argue that Meta deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to hook young users and keep them engaged on the sites for extended periods through features such as infinite scrolling, photo filters, and the “like” button. These design choices allegedly created algorithms that “encourage compulsive use” among minors, according to the legal filing.

The states also accuse Meta of violating the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by gathering personal data about users under 13 without obtaining parental consent. The case represents part of a broader web of litigation aimed at holding social media companies accountable for alleged harms to young people’s mental health. State attorneys have not yet announced whether they will call Zuckerberg himself as a witness during the proceedings.

Potential Penalties Could Reach Record-Breaking Levels

The financial stakes in this trial reach unprecedented heights, with initial estimates of potential penalties climbing as high as $1.4 trillion – a figure roughly equal to the entire value of Meta’s equity on the Nasdaq exchange. Legal experts have drawn comparisons between this moment and the landmark litigation against tobacco companies in the 1990s, which forced those corporations into major settlements and fundamentally altered both their business practices and public discourse surrounding cigarette risks. The scale of potential consequences underscores the gravity of the allegations and could set precedents for how social media companies operate in the future.

Meta Denies Allegations and Defends Safety Record

Meta has vigorously denied all allegations brought by the states. In a statement emailed to NPR, the company characterized the states’ claims as unsubstantiated and defended its record of creating strong protections for teenagers. Meta pointed to enhanced privacy settings and a one-hour timer on Instagram designed to remind young users to close the app as evidence of its commitment to teen safety. The company maintains that it has taken meaningful steps to address risks facing young people on its platforms.

Paul Schmidt, a lawyer representing Meta, argued during his opening statement Tuesday that the states were cherry picking data points, statements, and studies out of context. Schmidt contended that Meta remained cognizant of the risks to young people throughout the relevant time period and made genuine efforts to address those concerns. He emphasized that the company has openly discussed challenges users face with social media over the years, pushing back against characterizations that Meta systematically concealed dangers from the public.

“Let me be clear: Meta has talked over the years about people struggling with social media,” Schmidt said in his opening statement.

Trial Continues with Focus on Internal Corporate Culture

The trial, which got underway Tuesday in Oakland, represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over social media regulation and corporate responsibility for platform design. Béjar‘s testimony provides rare insider perspective on the decision-making processes and cultural priorities within one of the world’s most influential technology companies. His account suggests that safety concerns took a backseat to growth metrics and user engagement targets within Meta’s organizational structure, with ultimate responsibility resting at the highest levels of corporate leadership.

As proceedings continue, the case will likely explore the tension between social media companies’ profit motives and their responsibilities to protect vulnerable users, particularly children and teenagers. The outcome could reshape how platforms approach product design, content moderation, and transparency about potential harms. With Béjar‘s detailed testimony establishing the groundwork for the states’ case, attention now turns to how Meta will counter these allegations and whether additional witnesses will corroborate or challenge the whistleblower’s account of the company’s internal culture and priorities.