Mark Zuckerberg is trying to wiggle out of testifying in person at a slew of social media trials

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is attempting to wiggle out of testifying in person at a wave of headline-grabbing trials on social media addiction this year — and plaintiffs are crying foul, The Post has learned.

The Instagram parent is headed to Calif. federal court this summer as part of federal multidistrict litigation – a bid to streamline more than 2,400 lawsuits filed by school districts, state attorneys general and individuals into a few “bellwether” cases.

The first, filed by Breathitt County School District in Kentucky, heads to trial on June 12. In a pre-trial filing, Meta argued that Zuckerberg should only have to testify in person one time – with all other plaintiffs in upcoming trials forced to rely on a videotaped recording of that testimony when arguing their own cases in court.  

The plaintiffs fired back, arguing that doing so would “grant drastic, unique, wholesale protection just for Mr. Zuckerberg (and him alone) while irreparably prejudicing thousands of plaintiffs.”

Previn Warren, an attorney at law firm Motley Rice who serves as co-lead counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated federal case, slammed Zuckerberg for trying to dodge accountability in an exclusive statement to The Post.

“Mr. Zuckerberg’s power, wealth, and status should not privilege his time over that of any other witness,” Warren said. “He is capable of finding his way to the courthouse and should face each plaintiff in each trial.”

On Friday, the state attorneys general attached to the federal case agreed to let Zuckerberg to testify via videotaped deposition. Warren is still pushing for case-by-case testimony for school districts.

US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is overseeing the case, is expected to rule any day on whether to approve Meta’s request. She is also overseeing Elon Musk’s bombshell lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman.

“Courts have said in the past that asking for Mr. Zuckerberg to testify over and over again is duplicative given the dozens of hours of testimony he and other senior executives have already provided,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. “This is nothing more than a PR play by the plaintiffs’ lawyers to drum up more attention.”

Meta is scrambling to stave off a wave of lawsuits alleging its apps have fueled a teen mental health crisis. Meta has already suffered back-to-back losses in what critics hailed as a “Big Tobacco moment” for the owner of Facebook and Instagram.

On March 24, a New Mexico state jury slapped Meta with a $375 million penalty for failing to protect kids from child sex creeps. Just one day later, a Los Angeles state jury found Meta and YouTube owner Google liable for $6 million in damages to a woman called KGM, who alleged that the apps fueled her descent into anxiety and depression.

The plaintiffs likely see a “strategic advantage” in securing live testimony from Zuckerberg on a trial-by-trial basis, according to Adam Zimmerman, an expert on mass tort law and professor at USC.

“Bringing a CEO in front of a jury, and then cross-examining them can make them more real and take these ‘giants’ of tech and bring them down to size,” Zimmerman said. “There’s always the possibility that they say something different live as opposed to a carefully curated video.”

Zimmerman said videotaped testimony is “not uncommon in mass tort cases ranging from opioids to vaping cases” and beyond.

Still, there’s no guarantee that the judge will side with Meta in this case. Zuckerberg testified in person for the “KGM” case in Los Angeles, while he appeared via videotape in the New Mexico case.

Live testimony of a CEO remains the “gold standard” in civil cases because it allows the actual jury to see the cross-examination of the witness for themselves, according to Howard Erichson, a professor at Fordham University’s School of Law.

“On the other hand … the judge may view this as an opportunity to streamline the process and reduce the risk of settlement pressure that may be created if plaintiffs can impose a repetitive burden on the defendant’s chief executive,” Erichson added.

In their rebuttal to Meta’s motion, Warren and other plaintiff attorneys argue that “verdicts produced through pre-recorded video testimony of key witnesses do not have the same value to the litigants, Court, or public.

“Meta’s motion would negatively impact future bellwether trials in this case and set a precedent that invites other “repeat” witnesses—executives, corporate representatives, and experts—to raise their hands for the same relief,” the attorneys added.

Meta’s attorneys have been aggressive in their attempts to protect Zuckerberg from any extra personal exposure in the recent lawsuits.

As The Post reported in February, the company tried to block the plaintiffs from grilling Zuckerberg about his $237 billion personal fortune during the KGM trial.

KGM’s lawyers argued at the time that Meta was attempting to “shield Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s founder, CEO, and controlling shareholder, from the very same scrutiny that other witnesses have faced.”

The spat resulted in a partial victory for Meta, with California state Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl ruling that questions about Zuckerberg’s compensation and stock holdings were allowed, while specific questions related to his total net worth and assets like property and homes — such as his 2,300-acre compound in Hawaii and $300 million superyacht — were prohibited.