This is an article about courtroom misconduct — specifically, misconduct tied to the use of technology inside a courtroom. Which is almost too perfect, given the case in question.

In Los Angeles, a closely watched trial is underway against Meta (Instagram) and YouTube. The plaintiff alleges that the companies designed their platforms to be addictive and that years of compulsive use contributed to depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia. It is a case about algorithms, engagement metrics, dopamine loops, and the psychological power of technology.

And yet, some of the most dramatic courtroom moments so far have not centered on testimony about adolescent brain development or internal corporate emails. Instead, they have involved smart glasses and a Zoom interview.

In a case about the harms of technology, technology itself has become the subject of judicial discipline.

The Meta Glasses Moment

When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared to testify, members of his team were reportedly wearing Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses that are equipped with tiny cameras. California courtroom rules, like those in most jurisdictions, strictly prohibit recording devices in the courtroom without permission.

Judge Carolyn Kuhl did not find this amusing.

She ordered the glasses removed and warned that any recording would be a serious violation of court rules, potentially subject to contempt sanctions. Whether the glasses were actively recording or not, the issue was simple. If a device is capable of recording, it does not belong in the courtroom unless authorized.

There is a certain irony here that does not require embellishment. A company defending itself against allegations that it engineered technology to capture and hold attention appeared in court accompanied by wearable recording technology that immediately captured the judge’s attention.

Courtrooms, however, are not product demonstration spaces. They operate on rules designed to protect jurors, witnesses, and the integrity of proceedings. Recording prohibitions are not optional or symbolic. They are foundational to ensuring fairness and preventing intimidation or media influence.

The message was clear. No matter how innovative the device, the courtroom still runs on old-school rules.

The Zoom Interview That Cost a Leadership Role

If the glasses incident was awkward, the next episode was more consequential.

Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center and one of the lead plaintiffs’ attorneys, conducted an on-camera Zoom interview with the BBC from inside the courthouse. Courthouse rules prohibit recording and broadcasting from inside without authorization. This was not a gray area.

Judge Kuhl removed Bergman from his leadership role on the plaintiffs’ steering committee and scheduled a contempt hearing. He remains involved in the case, but he no longer holds a leadership position.

Bergman reportedly acknowledged the lapse and apologized, describing it as a mistake made during an intense day of testimony. But the court’s response underscores an important principle. High-profile litigation does not create exemptions from basic courtroom decorum.

It is not unusual for judges to sanction lawyers for violating courtroom rules. What is notable here is the thematic symmetry. In a trial focused on whether tech companies exercise sufficient restraint and responsibility in deploying powerful tools, both sides have now faced scrutiny over their own use of technology inside the courtroom.

Technology as a Tool — and a Trap

None of this means technology does not belong in the courtroom. It very much does.

Modern trial practice depends on it. Digital exhibits. Real-time transcript feeds. Trial presentation software. Remote witness testimony. Electronic evidence displays. Technology can sharpen advocacy, clarify complex facts, and help jurors understand sophisticated issues. Used thoughtfully, it is an asset.

But trial lawyers must distinguish between approved litigation technology and personal convenience technology.

The fact that a device feels ordinary in daily life does not make it permissible in court. Smart glasses are still recording devices. A Zoom interview is still a broadcast. A quick photo is still photography.

Judges are not reacting to the novelty of the tools. They are enforcing boundaries designed to protect the process.

For trial lawyers, the lesson is straightforward. Know the courtroom rules before bringing new technology into the space. Ask permission. When in doubt, leave it outside.

Innovation does not override decorum.