Mark Zuckerberg faced sharp legal scrutiny during his testimony in a landmark social media safety trial on Wednesday, as attorneys questioned whether he had misrepresented his level of accountability to Meta’s board. The questioning focused on a statement he made during a 2023 interview with Joe Rogan, where he claimed he wasn’t worried about being fired because he held voting power that would allow him to remove the board and reinstate himself. In court, Zuckerberg was pressed on whether that comment contradicted prior testimony in which he said the board had the authority to fire him. “If the board wants to fire me, I could elect a new board and reinstate myself,” he told the jury, echoing his podcast remarks. The discrepancy has become a focal point for the plaintiff’s legal team, which is arguing that Zuckerberg’s control over Meta’s governance structure undermines claims of accountability. The trial, taking place in Los Angeles Superior Court, is being described as the industry’s “Big Tobacco” moment, with sweeping implications for how tech companies are held responsible for the mental health impacts of their platforms. The case was initiated by a young woman who alleges she developed an addiction to Instagram and YouTube, leading to severe anxiety and depression. Her legal team argues that Meta, along with YouTube, TikTok, and Snap, deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive and knew about the potential harms to youth. Snap and TikTok settled with the plaintiff before the trial began, leaving Meta as the primary defendant. During his appearance, Zuckerberg arrived at the courthouse just before noon ET, accompanied by several members of his leadership team. Several were seen wearing Meta’s Ray-Ban AI glasses, which feature small cameras in the corners and the Meta logo on the side. Recording is strictly prohibited in the courtroom, so the glasses were not used during the session. The trial, which began in late January, is expected to examine internal Meta documents, design decisions, and the company’s knowledge of platform effects on mental health. The outcome could set a precedent for how social media companies are regulated and whether they can be held legally liable for harms caused by their products.