The first week of testimony in Oakland ended with the states continuing to build their case around a central allegation: Meta knew its platforms could create serious risks for young users and failed to make changes that would reduce those risks.
Thursday’s proceedings focused on the transition from former Meta safety executive Arturo Béjar’s whistleblower testimony to Meta’s own internal research. After Béjar spent two days describing the company’s internal approach to youth safety, jurors heard recorded testimony from Elena Davis, a former Meta researcher who studied Facebook usage patterns and habit formation.
For plaintiff lawyers watching MDL No. 3047, the significance of Thursday was the direction of the evidence. The states moved from employee testimony about corporate culture into Meta’s own research, internal assessments and product analysis. That is where knowledge becomes the focus.
Inside the Courtroom — August 20
States Move From Whistleblower Testimony to Meta’s Own Research
After Béjar completed his testimony, the states turned to recorded testimony from Elena Davis, a Meta researcher who studied Facebook usage patterns and the relationship between platform design and habit-forming use.
Davis discussed internal research examining whether Facebook could be modified to reduce unwanted or excessive use. Jurors heard testimony that Meta research identified ways the platform could have “less potential to be habit-forming” and provide users with greater support in changing their usage patterns.
The testimony is important because it supports the states’ broader argument: Meta was not unaware of the risks associated with engagement-driven design. The issue is whether Meta had information showing specific product changes were possible—and whether the company chose to implement those changes. For plaintiff attorneys, the framework is familiar. Corporate liability cases often turn on what a company knew, when it knew it, and what it did after learning the risk.
Béjar Testimony Remains the Week’s Major Plaintiff-Side Moment
Although Thursday moved into Meta’s internal research, the impact of Béjar’s testimony continued to shape the trial.
Béjar testified that Meta’s culture emphasized growth and engagement and that safety concerns did not receive the same priority. He told jurors that CEO Mark Zuckerberg had the ability to move the company quickly when an issue became a priority, but that youth safety did not receive that same level of urgency.
The former Facebook and Instagram safety executive also testified that Meta knew children under 13 were using its platforms and described the company’s approach as effectively “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He testified that Meta had sophisticated technology capable of identifying suspicious accounts but did not establish comparable internal goals focused on identifying younger users.
That testimony goes directly to the states’ argument that Meta was not surprised by children using its platforms. The company understood the issue and made decisions about how aggressively to address it.
Meta’s Defense: Safety Efforts Were Real and Ongoing
Meta’s defense continued to challenge the states’ characterization of internal documents and employee testimony. The company has argued that the states are selectively presenting internal materials while overlooking years of work by Meta employees focused on safety.
During Béjar’s cross-examination, Meta attorney Brian Stekloff emphasized that Béjar respected many of the people working on safety issues at Meta and questioned whether Béjar and his teams had actually solved the problems they identified.
The defense theme is becoming clear: youth safety is a complicated issue without simple solutions. The states’ response is expected to remain focused on a narrower question: whether Meta made reasonable changes after learning about known risks.
Broader Significance for Plaintiff Lawyers
The Oakland trial is being closely watched because the allegations are centered on product design rather than simply third-party content posted on social media platforms.
The states contend that features including infinite scrolling, engagement metrics and recommendation systems were designed to keep young users on the platforms longer, increasing advertising value while exposing children to foreseeable risks.
That theory mirrors the questions being raised in thousands of individual social media injury cases:
- Did the company know the product created risks?
- Did internal research identify those risks?
- Were safer alternatives available?
- Did the company choose engagement over safety?
Thursday’s testimony continued moving the case toward those questions.
Courtroom Watch — What Comes Next
The Oakland proceedings are continuing before Chief U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California. The next phase of the trial will be closely watched as the states continue presenting internal Meta evidence, researchers and expert testimony addressing adolescent mental health and social media use.
The transition from Béjar’s testimony to Meta’s own internal research could become one of the more important evidentiary themes of the trial.
Trial Intelligence Takeaway
Thursday was not built around a single dramatic courtroom moment. Instead, it was about foundation. Béjar provided the insider account. Meta’s own research began filling in the documentary record.
For plaintiff lawyers, that combination is the important development: a former insider describing what happened inside the company, followed by evidence from Meta’s own research showing what the company was studying and what questions it was asking internally. The fight ahead will continue to center on one question:
When Meta learned about the risks to young users, did it do enough to change the product?