Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a Wednesday court testimony that he reached out to Apple CEO Tim Cook to discuss the “wellbeing of teens and kids.”

The comments came after the defense lawyer Paul Schmidt pointed to an email exchange between Zuckerberg and Cook from February 2018. “I thought there were opportunities that our company and Apple could be doing and I wanted to talk to Tim about that,” Zuckerberg said.

The email exchange was part of a broader portrayal by the defense attorney to show jury members that Zuckerberg was more proactive about the safety of young Instagram users than what was previously presented to court by the opposing counsel, going so far as to reach out to a corporate rival.

“I care about the wellbeing of teens and kids who are using our services,” Zuckerberg said when characterizing some of the content of the email.

Zuckerberg testified during a landmark trial in Los Angeles Superior Court over the question of social media and safety, which is being likened to the industry’s “Big Tobacco” moment.

Part of the trial focused on the alleged harms of certain digital filters promoting the cosmetic surgery, which Instagram chief Adam Mosseri previously testified about earlier in the trial.

Zuckerberg said that the company consulted with various stakeholders about the use of beauty filters on Instagram, but he did not specifically name them. The plaintiff’s lawyer questioned Zuckerberg about messages showing he lifted the ban because it was “paternalistic.”

“It sounds like something I would say and something I feel,” Zuckerberg replied. “It feels a little overbearing.”

Zuckerberg was pressed about the decision to allow the feature when the company had guidance from experts that the beauty filters had negative effects, particularly on young girls.

He was specifically asked about one study by the University of Chicago in which 18 experts said that beauty filters as a feature cause harm to teenage girls.

Zuckerberg, who noted that he believed this was referring to so-called cosmetic surgery filters, said he saw that feedback and discussed with the team, and it came down to free expression. “I genuinely want to err on the side of giving people the ability to express themselves,” Zuckerberg said.

Zuckerberg echoed Mosseri’s previous sentiments shared in court that Meta ultimately decided to lift a temporary ban on the plastic surgery digital filters without promoting them to other users.

Defense attorney Mark Lanier noted that Facebook vice president of product design and responsible innovation Margaret Stewart said in an email that while she would support Zuckerberg’s ultimate decision, she said she didn’t believe it was the “right call given the risks.” She mentioned in her message that she dealt with a personal family situation that she acknowledged made her biased, but gives her “first-hand knowledge” of the alleged harms.

Zuckerberg said that many Meta employees disagree with the company’s decisions, which is something the company encourages, and while he understood Stewart’s perspective, there was ultimately not enough causal evidence to support the assertion of harms by the outside experts.

When Lanier asked if Zuckerberg has a college degree that would indicate expertise in causation, the Meta chief said, “I don’t have a college degree in anything.”

“I agree i do not know the legal understanding of causation, but I think I have a pretty good idea of how statistics work,” Zuckerberg said.

The trial, which began in late January, centers on a young woman who alleged that she became addicted to social media and video streaming apps like Instagram and YouTube.

The Facebook founder pushed back against the notion that the social media company made increasing time spent on Instagram a company goal.

Zuckerberg was addressing a 2015 email thread in which he appeared to highlight improving engagement metrics as an urgent matter for the company.

While the email chain may have contained the words “company goals,” Zuckerberg said the comments could have been an aspiration, and asserted that Meta doesn’t have those objectives.

Lawyers later brought up evidence from Mosseri, which included goals to actively up user daily engagement time on the platform to 40 minutes in 2023 and to 46 minutes in 2026.

Zuckerberg said the company uses milestones internally to measure against competitors and “deliver the results we want to see.” He asserted that the company is building services to help people connect.

Lawyers also raised questions over whether the company has taken adequate steps to remove underage users from its platform.

Zuckerberg said during his testimony that some users lie about their age when signing up for Instagram, which requires users to be 13 or older. Lawyers also shared a document which stated that 4 million kids under 13 used the platform in the U.S.

The Facebook founder said that the company removes all underage users it identifies and includes terms about age usage during the sign-up process.

“You expect a 9-year-old to read all of the fine print,” a lawyer for the plaintiff questioned. “That’s your basis for swearing under oath that children under 13 are not allowed?”

Instagram did not begin requiring birthdays at sign-up until late 2019. At several times, Zuckerberg brought up his belief that age-verification is better suited for companies like Apple and Google, which maintain mobile operating systems and app stores.

Zuckerberg later responded to questions about documents in which the company reported a higher retention rate on its platform for users who join as tweens. He said lawyers were “mischaracterizing” his words and that Meta doesn’t always launch products in development such as an Instagram app for users under 13.

During Wednesday’s session, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl threatened to hold anyone using AI smart glasses during Zuckerberg’s testimony in contempt of court.

“If you have done that, you must delete that, or you will be held in contempt of the court,” the judge said. “This is very serious.”

Members of the team escorting Zuckerberg into the building just before noon ET were pictured wearing the Meta Ray-Ban artificial intelligence glasses.

Recording is not allowed in the courtroom.

Lawyers also questioned whether Zuckerberg previously lied about the board’s inability to fire him.

If the board wants to fire me, I could elect a new board and reinstate myself,” he said, in response to remarks he previously made on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

During his interview with the podcaster last year, Zuckerberg had said he wasn’t worried about losing his job because he holds voting power.

Zuckerberg told the courtroom he is “very bad” at media.

Lawyers representing the plaintiff contend that Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap misled the public about the safety of their services and knew that the design of their apps and certain features caused mental health harms to young users.

Snap and TikTok settled with the plaintiff involved in the case before the trial began.

Meta has denied the allegations and a spokesperson told CNBC in a statement that “the question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles.”

Last week, Instagram’s Mosseri testified that while he thinks there can be problematic usage of social media, he doesn’t believe that’s the same as clinical addiction.

“So it’s a personal thing, but yeah, I do think it’s possible to use Instagram more than you feel good about,” Mosseri said. “Too much is relative, it’s personal.”

The Los Angeles trial is one of several major court cases taking place this year that experts have described as the social media industry’s “Big Tobacco” moment because of the alleged harm caused by their products and the related company efforts to deceive the public.

Meta is also involved in a major trial in New Mexico, in which the state’s attorney general, Raúl Torrez, alleges that the social media giant failed to ensure that children and young users are safe from online predators.

“What we are really alleging is that Meta has created a dangerous product, a product that enables not only the targeting of children, but the exploitation of children in virtual spaces and in the real world,” Torrez told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last week when opening arguments for the trial began.

This summer, another social media trial is expected to begin in the Northern District of California. That trial also involves companies like Meta and YouTube and allegations that their respective apps contain flaws that foster detrimental mental health issues in young users.

CNBC’s Jennifer Elias contributed reporting.

WATCH: New Mexico AG Raul Torrez talks about his case against Meta

More than 900 Google workers have signed an open letter condemning recent actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), urging the tech giant to disclose its dealings with the agencies and divest from them.

The letter, citing recent ICE killings of Keith Porter, Renee Good, and Alex Pretti, said that the employees are “appalled by the violence” and “horrified” by Google’s part in it.

“Google is powering this campaign of surveillance, violence, and repression,” the letter reads.

It goes on to cite that Google Cloud is aiding CBP surveillance and powering Palantir’s ImmigrationOS system, which is used by ICE. The letter states that Google’s generative artificial intelligence is used by CBP and that the Google Play Store has blocked ICE tracking apps.

The letter also quotes a social media post by Google Chief Scientist Jeff Dean from early January, who wrote, “We all bear a collective responsibility to speak up and not be silent when we see things like the events of the last week.”

“We are vehemently opposed to Google’s partnerships with DHS, CBP, and ICE,” the employees wrote. “We consider it our leadership’s ethical and policy-bound responsibility to disclose all contracts and collaboration with CBP and ICE, and to divest from these partnerships.”

The letter calls on Google to acknowledge the danger that workers face from ICE, host an emergency internal Q&A on the company’s DHS and military contracts, implement safety measures to protect workers — such as flexible work-from-home policies and immigration support — and reveal its ties with the government agencies to help all involved determine where the company will draw a line.

“As workers of conscience, we demand that our leadership end our backslide into contracting for governments enacting violence against civilians,” the letter reads. “Google is now a prominent node in a shameful lineage of private companies profiting from violent state repression. We must use this moment to come together as a Googler community and demand an end to this disgraceful use of our labor.”

Google did not immediately respond to a CNBC request for comment.

The letter comes as employees place mounting pressure on tech CEOs to speak out against ICE. Just two weeks prior, employees representing Amazon, Spotify, Meta and more wrote a similar letter demanding ICE “out of our cities.”

Amazon‘s stock plunged 11% in extended trading on Thursday, dragged lower by market jitters around the company’s $200 billion capex plans, the highest spending forecast among the megacap companies.

The forecast is a sharp increase from Amazon’s capital expenditures last year, and it was more than $50 billion above analysts’ expectations. The company reported spending roughly $131 billion on purchases of property and equipment in 2025, up from about $83 billion in the year prior.

Tech companies have laid out aggressive spending plans on artificial intelligence infrastructure since OpenAI ushered in the modern era of this technology with the release of ChatGPT in late 2022, but at the start of 2026, those lavish commitments have only kept growing.

Google parent Alphabet on Wednesday said it would spend up to $185 billion in 2026, while Meta last week said its capital expenditures could nearly double from last year to somewhere between $115 billion to $135 billion in 2026

On a conference call with investors, Wall Street analysts pressed Amazon executives for more clarity around the spending blitz and when it could begin to pay off. CEO Andy Jassy said in prepared remarks at the beginning of the call that he was “confident” that company’s cloud unit will see a “strong return on invested capital,” though he didn’t say when it could materialize.

“Help us, get to that — get to your level of confidence in having a strong long term return on that invested capital,” Mark Mahaney, Evercore ISI head of internet research, said to Jassy.

Jassy said the company needs the capital to keep pace with “very high demand” for Amazon’s AI compute, which requires more infrastructure such as data centers, chips and networking equipment.

“This isn’t some sort of quixotic, top-line grab,” Jassy said. “We have confidence that we, that these investments will yield strong returns on invested capital. We’ve done that with our core AWS business. I think that will very much be true here as well.”

Sales at Amazon Web Services grew 24% to $35.6 billion in the most recent period, beating analysts’ expectations and marking the cloud unit’s “fastest growth in 13 quarters,” Jassy said.

AWS could’ve grown faster if it had more capacity to meet demand, “so we are being incredibly scrappy around that,” he said.

The company’s cloud unit added almost 4 gigawatts of computing capacity in 2025, and AWS expects to double that power by the end of 2027, Jassy noted.

Barclays analyst Ross Sandler asked Jassy how he sees the AI market evolving from the current landscape, where it remains “a bit top-heavy with a lot of the spend clustering around a few of the AI-native labs.”

Jassy said the AI market has become more like a “barbell,” with the AI labs on one side and enterprises on the other end, looking to the technology as a “productivity and cost avoidance” tool. The middle is comprised of enterprises that are in various stages of building AI applications, he said.

“That middle part of the barbell very well may end up being the largest and most durable,” Jassy said.

WATCH: Amazon shares fall on earnings miss, $200 billion guidance for 2026 capex spending