Meta blocks lawyers from questioning Zuckerberg about $231 B fortune in LA trial.

Meta’s legal team filed a confidential motion in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking to shield its founder‑CEO Mark Zuckerberg from questions about his personal fortune, arguing that the magnitude of his holdings “is somehow off limits,” the filing shows, according to the New York Post. Plaintiffs in the social‑media addiction lawsuit contend that Zuckerberg, whose net worth Bloomberg lists at $231 billion, turned a blind eye to teen harm to protect those profits. The request, unsealed last Friday, asked the court to treat Zuckerberg’s wealth as non‑relevant to the liability phase of the case, a stance the plaintiffs’ attorneys immediately challenged as “directly relevant to substantive issues the jury must resolve,” the Post reports.

Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl issued a partial victory for Meta, permitting inquiries into Zuckerberg’s compensation and stock holdings while barring questions about his total net worth, property, and other assets, the court order states. “While Mark Zuckerberg’s financial standing is a matter of public record, based on the Court’s existing orders and established California law, it is not relevant to this case,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement, the New York Post notes. The ruling reflects California’s evidentiary standards that limit probing into personal wealth unless a clear nexus to the alleged wrongdoing is established.

Despite the protective order, Zuckerberg was still grilled about his fortune when he took the stand on Feb. 18. Plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier, representing a California woman identified only as “KGM,” snarked about Zuckerberg’s “spending habits” and pressed him on the scale of his assets, which include a 2,300‑acre Hawaiian compound, a $300 million superyacht and a Gulfstream jet, according to the trial transcript cited by the Post. Zuckerberg responded that the success of Instagram enables him to “invest in science, research and causes like that” through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, but deflected further questioning about his personal pledges to victims of social‑media harm, saying, “That’s not a part of the focus of the foundation.” He left the courtroom shortly thereafter, heading to Milan Fashion Week with his wife, the New York Post adds.

The wealth dispute sits alongside broader accusations that Meta, alongside Google’s YouTube, deliberately rolled out addictive features while failing to provide adequate safety resources for minors. Reuters reported that jurors in the case have seen internal Meta documents outlining a “tween strategy,” and that Zuckerberg denied that Instagram targets children during his testimony, a claim that could shape liability findings. Plaintiffs argue that Zuckerberg’s personal stake in the company’s profitability creates a direct conflict of interest, making his financial profile a material factor in assessing whether the platforms were designed to maximize engagement at the expense of youth well‑being.

Legal analysts note that the court’s decision to limit wealth‑related questioning may set a precedent for future tech‑industry litigation, where founders’ personal fortunes often intersect with corporate conduct. By restricting probes into Zuckerberg’s assets, the judge effectively narrowed the evidentiary window through which plaintiffs can link personal gain to alleged harms. As the trial proceeds, the focus will likely shift to internal communications and product design decisions, with the wealth issue remaining a peripheral but symbolically potent point of contention, as highlighted by both the New York Post and Reuters coverage.