Mark Zuckerberg's legal team faced a judge in federal court in Oakland on Friday.
The Meta CEO is accused of getting children addicted to social media.
Zuckerberg was not personally in court as U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers tried to sort out what the request for Zuckerberg to be dropped from the lawsuit means for the plaintiffs that come from 15 different states.
Some states address an executive’s duty to disclose whether there was fraudulent omission or negligent representation.
Get a weekly recap of the latest San Francisco Bay Area housing news. Sign up for NBC Bay Area’s Housing Deconstructed newsletter.
The suits filed by families and schools allege that Zuckerberg’s actions and inactions led to the social media addiction of children and to harm they wouldn’t have encountered otherwise.
Zuckerberg’s lawyer argued that there should be a clear distinction between what Zuckerberg is responsible for as the CEO of his company and what he is responsible for personally.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs say he should be brought to trial.
Local
"We allege that he was an active participant. He knew about all the safety defects, and he did not disclose them, and that that omission is actionable," said Mathew Jasinski, council to the plaintiffs.
Lawyers for the government claim there is no distinction.
Titania Jordan, the chief parent officer of Bark Technologies, an online safety company, said it’s nearly impossible to believe that Zuckerberg would not have known the harm to children.
"If Mark Zuckerberg knew the depth and breadth to which children were harmed on a daily basis by accessing and being addicted to the platforms that he is in charge of and did not take meaningful and significant action to remedy those harms, then he should be held personally liable," Jordan said. "Now, if he can claim plausible deniability or if he was made aware of this and instructed his team to make it better or make it safer and they didn’t, then that is on the company."
If Zuckerberg is dropped as a defendant, it would set a precedent because generally executives have been shielded from personal responsibility.
Meta said in a statement Friday that "legal precedent establishes that being an executive does not confer liability for alleged conduct of a corporation." They say the claims against Zuckerberg should be dismissed.
As for Friday’s hearing, the judge did not remove Zuckerberg from potential liability. But did not close the door, either, saying the parties will come back together next month.
