In an aerial view, two-story single family homes line the streets of neighborhood on January 13, 2026 in Thousand Oaks, California. (Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage dropped below 6% for the first time in nearly four years, according to new data from Freddie Mac.
Rates have been hovering around 6% this year and averaged 6.76% last February.
“For the first time in three and a half years, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage dropped into the 5% range, falling even lower than last week’s milestone,” Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s chief economist, said in a statement. “This rate, combined with the improving availability of homes for sale, is meaningful and will drive more potential buyers into the market for spring homebuying season.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
US President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference at the White House, Washington, D.C., US on February 20, 2026. Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump rushed to enact new tariffs and vowed to preserve others after a recent Supreme Court ruling knocked out most of his levies.
Businesses and consumers now face a different set of tariffs, which amount to taxes paid by importers for goods shipped into the U.S. Oftentimes, importers pass along tariff-related costs to consumers, raising retail prices.
The nation’s overall tariff rate has dropped, meaning some products have gained relief from tariff-related price pressures, some analysts told ABC News. But levies remain in place for nearly all imported goods, including duties as high as 50%, hiking costs for some companies and shoppers, they added.
“In general, we’ve seen tariffs pushing up on prices. That won’t go away,” Jason Miller, a professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University, told ABC News.
The high court ruled on Friday that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) does not authorize Trump to impose levies, nullifying 70% of Trump’s tariffs after they collected more than $140 billion through December, the Yale Budget Lab found.
During his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, Trump criticized the Supreme Court decision, describing at as a “very unfortunate ruling,” and asserting that he retains the ability to impose tariffs under “fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes.”
In a social media post on Monday, Trump affirmed what he said was his authority to issue tariffs, saying he does not need to consult Congress before erecting new trade levies.
Trump also reiterated his commitment to his policy approach, warning other countries that they may face a “much higher Tariff, and worse.”
A 10% global tariff took effect on Tuesday, marking the first duty enacted by Trump since the high court’s decision. Trump issued the levy under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to hike tariffs for 150 days as means of addressing “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits, or disparities between a country’s total payments in transactions with other nations and its total earnings. In order to extend the Section 122 tariffs beyond 150 days, Trump would need to secure congressional approval.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said this week that Democrats would oppose an extension of Section 122 tariffs, which could deny Trump the 60 votes necessary to overcome a potential Senate filibuster.
Trump has vowed to hike the Section 122 tariff to 15%. As of Tuesday, however, the president had not issued an order formalizing that increase.
A 15% Section 122 tariff would result in price increases amounting to $800 in additional costs for an average U.S. household over the next 150 days, the Yale Budget Lab projected.
“That’s hundreds of dollars that you’re going to be paying as a result of these tariffs,” Raymond Robertson, professor for trade, economics and public policy at Texas A&M University, told ABC News.
Robertson noted the ultimate cost impact may be slightly lower than projected as consumers shift away from products that display noticeable tariff-induced price hikes. But, he added, tariff-impacted products will be all but impossible for shoppers to avoid.
“These tariffs are hitting across the board,” Robertson said.
The Trump administration also plans to maintain sector-specific tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and conclude pending investigations that could authorize additional levies, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement on Friday.
That statute permits the White House to levy tariffs on products of importance to national security. Under the law, the White House must await the result of an investigation undertaken by the Commerce Department before imposing a tariff.
Under Section 232, for instance, steel and aluminum face a 50% tariff, putting upward pressure on prices for tableware, motorcycles, canned goods and assorted children’s products, analysts previously told ABC News.
A 50% tariff also applies to some copper products, while 25% tariffs remain for cars and auto parts. Those levies exclude a host of goods compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, a free trade agreement.
To be sure, some products will experience a reduction of tariffs in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision. Products from China, Brazil, Vietnam and India will likely gain notable tariff relief, since those nations faced significant tariffs under the legal authority that was struck down by the Supreme Court, Miller said.
Electronics and clothing are among the products that could benefit from softer tariffs.
If the Supreme Court had opted to uphold tariffs issued under IEPPA, the nation’s effective tariff rate would have remained at 16%, the Yale Budget Lab said. Taking into account Section 122 tariffs, the effective tariff rate now stands at 13.7%, the group said.
“The good news for consumers is there’s an overall decrease in tariff rates,” Miller said. “What creates a challenge is we don’t know exactly what the new landscape will look like.”
President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, February 20, 2026. (Aaron Schwartz/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A 10% global tariff took effect on Tuesday, marking the first duty enacted by President Donald Trump after a recent Supreme Court decision invalidated most of his levies.
Within hours of the high court’s ruling on Friday, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10% tariff on nearly all imports for up to 150 days. The directive called for enforcement of the duty to begin at 12:01 a.m. ET on Tuesday, Feb. 24.
Soon after signing the order, Trump vowed to hike the global tariff to 15%. As of Tuesday, however, the president had not issued an executive order formalizing that increase.
Stocks ticked higher Tuesday morning, recovering some of the losses suffered a day earlier in the first trading session since Trump announced the tariff increase.
Trump enacted the 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the White House to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits, or disparities between a country’s total payments in transactions with other nations and its total earnings.
Under the measure, the president can also impose levies to “prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar.”
The Section 122 tariffs will result in price increases amounting to $800 in additional costs for an average U.S. household over the next 150 days, the Yale Budget Lab projected. In order to extend the across-the-board 15% tariff beyond that time window, Trump would need to secure Congressional approval.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Monday that Democrats would oppose an extension of Section 122 tariffs, which could deny Trump the 60 votes necessary to overcome a potential Senate filibuster.
In a social media post on Monday, Trump affirmed what he said was his authority to issue tariffs, saying he does not need to consult Congress before erecting new trade levies.
Trump also reiterated his commitment to his policy approach, warning other countries that they may face a “much higher Tariff, and worse.”
The high court ruled in their February 20 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) does not authorize Trump to impose levies, nullifying a major swathe of tariffs issued by the president on April 2 of last year, which he dubbed “Liberation Day,” and a host of other measures.
If the Supreme Court had opted to uphold tariffs issued under IEPPA, the nation’s effective tariff rate would have remained at 16%, the Yale Budget Lab said. Taking into account the Section 122 tariffs, the effective tariff rate now stands at 13.7%, the group said.
Photo of Wall Street (Matteo Colombo/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Stocks slid on Monday morning in the first trading session since President Donald Trump announced a new 15% tariff on most imported goods, intensifying his effort to impose levies that were struck down by the Supreme Court.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 90 points, or 0.1%, while the S&P 500 dropped 0.1%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq declined 0.1%.
Cryptocurrency prices tumbled in early trading on Monday. The price of bitcoin fell nearly 2%, putting it at about $66,075.
Gold prices jumped to their highest level in three weeks as investors sought the safe-heaven asset amid heightened uncertainty.
In a social media post on Monday, Trump reiterated his criticism of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, Trump said, “accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as President of the United States, far more powers and strength than I had prior.”
Trump retains the power to levy a 15% tariff for up to 150 days under the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to address trade disparities with other countries.
Hours after the Supreme Court ruling on Friday, Trump said he would sign an executive order enacting a new 10% “global tariff,” invoking authority under Section 122. On Saturday, Trump escalated the tariff to 15%.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — The U.S. economy slowed more than expected over the final months of 2025, federal government data on Friday showed.
The economy grew at an annualized rate of 1.4% in the fourth quarter in the government’s initial estimate, marking a cooldown from blistering-hot 4.4% growth recorded in the previous quarter.
The slowdown at the end of last year stemmed in part from a decline in the pace of consumer spending, the U.S. Commerce Department said.
The GDP report marks the latest distress signal for U.S. shoppers, who account for about two-thirds of the nation’s economic activity.
Retail sales data last week showed flat performance in December, suggesting possible weakness for shoppers during the holiday season. Meanwhile, credit card debt levels have climbed and consumer sentiment has remained glum.
The fresh reading of gross domestic product on Friday provided a key measure of the country’s economic health as policymakers continued to grapple with an ongoing bout of elevated inflation and sluggish hiring.
Inflation cooled in January, dropping price increases to their lowest level in nine months. While the pullback defied fears of a tariff-induced rise in overall costs, inflation continued to hover above the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2%.
Meanwhile, a recent jobs report showed stronger-than-expected hiring in January, even though an updated estimate released at the same time indicated a near-paralysis of the labor market last year.
A boost in consumer spending helped propel the surge in GDP over three months ending in September, the U.S. Commerce Department previously said.
Over the past year, hiring has slowed dramatically while inflation has remained elevated, risking an economic double-whammy known as “stagflation.” Those conditions have put the Federal Reserve in a difficult position.
The central bank must balance a dual mandate to keep inflation under control and maximize employment. To address pressure on both of its goals, the Fed primarily holds a single tool: interest rates.
The strain on both sides of the Fed’s mandate presents a “challenging situation” for the central bank, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said in December.
The Fed held interest rates steady at its most recent meeting in January, ending a string of three consecutive quarter-point rate cuts.
Futures markets expect two quarter-point interest rate cuts this year, forecasting the first in June and a second in the fall, according to the CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives to the Los Angeles Superior Court at United States Court House on February 18, 2026 in Los Angeles, California. (Jill Connelly/Getty Images)
(LOS ANGELES) — A landmark trial over social media addiction has drawn fresh scrutiny to a decades-old legal shield: Section 230.
The case, which began last Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, centers on claims against Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — and YouTube, which is owned by Google. Plaintiffs argue the companies knowingly built features that encouraged compulsive use among young users, contributing to long-term mental health harm.
The case is the first of more than 1,500 similar lawsuits nationwide to go before a jury, potentially setting a precedent for how tech companies could be held liable for product design. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is testifying in the case on Wednesday.
The companies deny the allegations, arguing that mental health outcomes are shaped by a range of factors beyond social media use. They say they have implemented safeguards aimed at protecting young users, including parental controls and accounts designed specifically for teens.
In a statement to ABC News at the start of the trial, a Meta spokesperson said, “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”
Meta said that the company has made “meaningful changes” to its services, such as introducing accounts specifically for teenage users.
The tech giants are expected to challenge the plaintiff’s argument that there is a direct link between social media use and mental health issues. They may also invoke legal protection long-afforded by Section 230.
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms and other sites from legal liability that could result from content posted by users because they are not deemed to be publishers.
Plaintiffs have sought to circumvent that legal immunity in part by arguing that the platforms are addictive, which amounts to a defect in a product.
Section 230 grants broad protection for internet platforms, saying: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Some tech giants, like Meta and Google, have supported reform of Section 230 that would raise the standard that platforms would need to meet in order to qualify for immunity. But the companies largely support preserving the law in some form to protect them from legal liability tied to user-generated content.
Section 230 has garnered backing from some free-speech advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The measure “protects internet users’ speech by protecting the online intermediaries we rely on,” EFF said in a blog post last week, praising Section 230 as “the legal support that sustains the internet as we know it.”
In 2023, the Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings that upheld Section 230, rejecting challenges from users alleging that harm had resulted from online posts.
One of the cases, Gonzalez v. Google LLC, concerned a lawsuit brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American woman who was killed in an ISIS terrorist attack in Paris in 2015. The lawsuit against Google, the parent company of YouTube, alleged that YouTube recommended ISIS recruitment videos to users. The high court ruled against the plaintiffs.
Many Democrats argue that Section 230 allows platforms to evade accountability for allegedly permitting harmful or misleading content, claiming the rule lets platforms off the hook for policing too little speech.
Republicans have taken issue with what they consider big tech censorship, saying the legal protection allows the platforms to police too much speech without facing consequences.
In December, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., introduced the Sunset Section 230 Act, which would remove the legal protection from federal law within two years. A bipartisan group of seven senators has signed onto the bill but it remains well short of a majority.
ABC News’ Shafiq Najib contributed to this report.
Mark Zuckerberg (R), CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Mark Zuckerberg took the stand on Wednesday in a landmark Los Angeles trial alleging that major social media platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive for children and teens.
The case, which began last Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, centers on claims against Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — and YouTube, which is owned by Google. Plaintiffs argue the companies knowingly built features that encouraged compulsive use among young users, contributing to long-term mental health harm.
The lawsuit was brought by a now-20-year-old woman identified as “Kaley” and her mother, who allege she was exposed to addictive design features as a child. Her lawyers claim she got hooked on social media apps starting as young as age 6. She says features like auto-scrolling got her addicted to the platforms — ultimately leading to anxiety, depression and body image issues.
In opening statements, the plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier told the jury the case was “as easy as ABC,” which he said stood for “addicting the brains of children.”
The case is the first of more than 1,500 similar lawsuits nationwide to go before a jury, potentially setting a precedent for how tech companies are held liable for product design.
Zuckerberg has appeared before Congress multiple times to address concerns over youth safety and online harms, but Wednesday marks the first time he will testify before a jury on these claims.
Several parents of children who died by suicide or accidental harm linked to online trends are expected to attend the proceedings. Some previously watched Zuckerberg apologize during a 2024 Capitol Hill hearing, where he acknowledged families who said social media contributed to their children’s deaths.
The companies deny the allegations, arguing that mental health outcomes are shaped by a range of factors beyond social media use. They say they have implemented safeguards aimed at protecting young users, including parental controls and accounts designed specifically for teens.
In a statement to ABC News at the start of the trial, a Meta spokesperson said, “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”
Meta said that the company has made “meaningful changes” to its services, such as introducing accounts specifically for teenage users.
Zuckerberg’s appearance follows testimony last week from Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who disputed characterizing Instagram use as an “addiction,” while acknowledging what he described as “problematic use.”
Mosseri testified that there’s always a tradeoff between “safety and speech,” saying users don’t like it when they remove options from Instagram.
The Los Angeles trial is part of a broader wave of litigation targeting social media companies. Meta is also facing a separate child safety lawsuit in New Mexico, while lawsuits brought by school districts — modeled after tobacco litigation in the 1990s — are expected to head to trial later this year.
Social platforms Snapchat and TikTok were previously named in the lawsuit but reached settlements with the plaintiffs last month.
(NEW YORK) — A thaw in the housing market may deliver relief for homebuyers left out in the cold over recent years, analysts told ABC News.
After the pandemic, a rapid rise in home prices coincided with stubbornly high mortgage rates, shutting out potential buyers.
Glimmers of hope have started to emerge, however. Mortgage rates are falling, wages are rising faster than home prices and homebuyers are scooping up their biggest discounts in years, some analysts told ABC News.
“Housing is becoming more affordable. Are we there yet? No. But we’re on the right path,” Ken Johnson, a real estate economist at the University of Mississippi, told ABC News.
The average interest rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage stands at 6.09%, Freddie Mac data last week showed. A little more than a year ago, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate exceeded 7%.
Each percentage point decrease in a mortgage rate can save thousands or tens of thousands in additional costs each year, depending on the price of the house, according to Rocket Mortgage.
“It looks like mortgage rates are settling down,” Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors (NAR), told ABC News. “That’s great news for homebuyers.”
A measure of housing affordability issued by NAR has improved for seven consecutive months, rising to its highest level since 2022, Yun said. The surge in home prices has slowed while income gains have accelerated, bolstering the purchasing power of homebuyers, some analysts noted.
“Incomes are growing faster than home prices,” Johnson said.
Despite these positive signals, the housing market still faces significant challenges, some analysts said, pointing to a fundamental shortage of housing supply.
The housing market is suffering from a phenomenon known as the “lock-in” effect, Lu Liu, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, told ABC News.
While mortgage rates have fallen, they remain well above the rates enjoyed by most current homeowners, who may be reluctant to put their homes on the market and risk a much higher rate on their next mortgage.
“The degree of lock-in is unprecedented in the U.S.,” Liu said, noting the prevalence of 30-year mortgages and the inability for homeowners to transfer a current loan to a new property.
Existing home sales declined by 8.4% in January from the previous month, the NAR said in a report last week.
Alongside the lock-in effect, construction has failed to make up for a years-long shortage of new homes, exacerbating the shortfall.
While the lock-in effect remains a significant factor, its impact may be waning as some home owners encounter major life events or other circumstances that force them to move, even if it entails taking on a loan with a higher mortgage rate, Liu said.
“If they really do have to move, maybe they would be more willing to yield to this economic logic,” Liu added.
If homebuyers do move forward with a purchase, they may benefit from major price discounts, Redfin found this month. In 2025, homebuyers received average discounts that amount to 7.9% off a home’s initial listing price, Redfin said, making it the largest average discount in 13 years.
“Homebuyers are more likely to get discounts than they were in recent years because it’s the strongest buyer’s market in recent history,” said Lily Katz and Asad Khan, co-authors of the Redfin report.
Positive signals for homebuyers will likely continue as elevated mortgage rates weigh on consumer demand, slowing the rise in prices, some analysts said. But, they cautioned, an unexpected spike in mortgage rates could hike borrowing costs for homebuyers or an economic slowdown may crimp purchasing power.
“There is uncertainty over the outlook for interest rates,” Liu said. “So the overall price outlook is uncertain.”
(NEW YORK) — A thaw in the housing market may deliver relief for homebuyers left out in the cold over recent years, analysts told ABC News.
After the pandemic, a rapid rise in home prices coincided with stubbornly high mortgage rates, shutting out potential buyers.
Glimmers of hope have started to emerge, however. Mortgage rates are falling, wages are rising faster than home prices and homebuyers are scooping up their biggest discounts in years, some analysts told ABC News.
“Housing is becoming more affordable. Are we there yet? No. But we’re on the right path,” Ken Johnson, a real estate economist at the University of Mississippi, told ABC News.
The average interest rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage stands at 6.09%, Freddie Mac data last week showed. A little more than a year ago, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate exceeded 7%.
Each percentage point decrease in a mortgage rate can save thousands or tens of thousands in additional costs each year, depending on the price of the house, according to Rocket Mortgage.
“It looks like mortgage rates are settling down,” Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors (NAR), told ABC News. “That’s great news for homebuyers.”
A measure of housing affordability issued by NAR has improved for seven consecutive months, rising to its highest level since 2022, Yun said. The surge in home prices has slowed while income gains have accelerated, bolstering the purchasing power of homebuyers, some analysts noted.
“Incomes are growing faster than home prices,” Johnson said.
Despite these positive signals, the housing market still faces significant challenges, some analysts said, pointing to a fundamental shortage of housing supply.
The housing market is suffering from a phenomenon known as the “lock-in” effect, Lu Liu, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, told ABC News.
While mortgage rates have fallen, they remain well above the rates enjoyed by most current homeowners, who may be reluctant to put their homes on the market and risk a much higher rate on their next mortgage.
“The degree of lock-in is unprecedented in the U.S.,” Liu said, noting the prevalence of 30-year mortgages and the inability for homeowners to transfer a current loan to a new property.
Existing home sales declined by 8.4% in January from the previous month, the NAR said in a report last week.
Alongside the lock-in effect, construction has failed to make up for a years-long shortage of new homes, exacerbating the shortfall.
While the lock-in effect remains a significant factor, its impact may be waning as some home owners encounter major life events or other circumstances that force them to move, even if it entails taking on a loan with a higher mortgage rate, Liu said.
“If they really do have to move, maybe they would be more willing to yield to this economic logic,” Liu added.
If homebuyers do move forward with a purchase, they may benefit from major price discounts, Redfin found this month. In 2025, homebuyers received average discounts that amount to 7.9% off a home’s initial listing price, Redfin said, making it the largest average discount in 13 years.
“Homebuyers are more likely to get discounts than they were in recent years because it’s the strongest buyer’s market in recent history,” said Lily Katz and Asad Khan, co-authors of the Redfin report.
Positive signals for homebuyers will likely continue as elevated mortgage rates weigh on consumer demand, slowing the rise in prices, some analysts said. But, they cautioned, an unexpected spike in mortgage rates could hike borrowing costs for homebuyers or an economic slowdown may crimp purchasing power.
“There is uncertainty over the outlook for interest rates,” Liu said. “So the overall price outlook is uncertain.”
Mark Zuckerberg (R), CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Mark Zuckerberg is set to testify Wednesday in a landmark Los Angeles trial alleging that major social media platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive for children and teens.
The case, which began last Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, centers on claims against Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — and YouTube, which is owned by Google. Plaintiffs argue the companies knowingly built features that encouraged compulsive use among young users, contributing to long-term mental health harm.
The lawsuit was brought by a now-20-year-old woman identified as “Kaley” and her mother, who allege she was exposed to addictive design features as a child. Her lawyers claim she got hooked on social media apps starting as young as age 6. She says features like auto-scrolling got her addicted to the platforms — ultimately leading to anxiety, depression and body image issues.
In opening statements, the plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier told the jury the case was “as easy as ABC,” which he said stood for “addicting the brains of children.”
The case is the first of more than 1,500 similar lawsuits nationwide to go before a jury, potentially setting a precedent for how tech companies are held liable for product design.
Zuckerberg has appeared before Congress multiple times to address concerns over youth safety and online harms, but Wednesday marks the first time he will testify before a jury on these claims. Legal experts say a verdict in favor of the plaintiff could weaken the broad liability protections tech companies have long relied on under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from responsibility for user-generated content.(cut)
Several parents of children who died by suicide or accidental harm linked to online trends are expected to attend the proceedings. Some previously watched Zuckerberg apologize during a 2024 Capitol Hill hearing, where he acknowledged families who said social media contributed to their children’s deaths.
The companies deny the allegations, arguing that mental health outcomes are shaped by a range of factors beyond social media use. They say they have implemented safeguards aimed at protecting young users, including parental controls and accounts designed specifically for teens.
In a statement to ABC News at the start of the trial, a Meta spokesperson said, “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”
Meta said that the company has made “meaningful changes” to its services, such as introducing accounts specifically for teenage users.
Zuckerberg’s appearance follows testimony last week from Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who disputed characterizing Instagram use as an “addiction,” while acknowledging what he described as “problematic use.”
Mosseri testified that there’s always a tradeoff between “safety and speech,” saying users don’t like it when they remove options from Instagram.
The Los Angeles trial is part of a broader wave of litigation targeting social media companies. Meta is also facing a separate child safety lawsuit in New Mexico, while lawsuits brought by school districts — modeled after tobacco litigation in the 1990s — are expected to head to trial later this year.
Social platforms Snapchat and TikTok were previously named in the lawsuit but reached settlements with the plaintiffs last month.
