When Matthew Bergman decided to represent the kids suing tech companies over mental health issues, he probably didn’t expect his own social media post to become a courtroom exhibit. But when this lawyer decided to snap a selfie in front of the judge during a landmark trial, he shifted the spotlight from Big Tech’s conduct to his own.
From Asbestos to Algorithms
But who exactly is Matthew Bergman? The Pacific Northwest attorney had long ago built his career as a plaintiffs’ lawyer in asbestos litigation, representing families devastated by industrial exposures. He later turned that experience toward a new class of alleged corporate harms: the mental‑health fallout of youth social media use.
In 2021, he founded the Social Media Victims Law Center, positioning it as a boutique firm focused on suing social media platforms on behalf of children and families who say they were harmed by algorithm‑driven products. Bergman has since emerged as one of the architects of the nationwide social media addiction docket, helping to recruit plaintiffs, develop liability theories rooted in product‑defect and failure‑to‑warn law, and press for coordinated proceedings in state and federal courts. By the time the selfie incident rolled around this year, Bergman was well-known in the tech law world, speaking out regularly about the need to hold social media companies accountable, which made his recent mistake all the more ironic.
The selfie incident grew out of the country’s first coordinated social media addiction trial over youth social media addiction, a bellwether trial in Los Angeles Superior Court before Judge Kuhl. The plaintiff, referred to in court as Kaley G.M., alleges that a childhood addiction to Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube caused or worsened anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia. Her case is the first of thousands pending in Judge Kuhl’s courtroom against Meta, Google, and other platforms. The trial drew global press and testimony from executives like Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri.
A Selfie Enters the Record
Bergman served as one of the lawyers for Kaley and as a leader in the coordinated proceeding, even though he was not the one examining witnesses day‑to‑day. He was constantly in the thick of the media scrum that formed around the trial — walking the same hallways as reporters, talking to grieving parents, and fielding press interest in what the first social media addiction verdict might mean for Big Tech. Bergman also knew that Judge Kuhl had imposed tight limits on cameras and recording in and around her courtroom, in part to protect jurors and the young plaintiff whose identity was being shielded.
Nonetheless, in the middle of that media frenzy, Bergman pulled out his phone in Judge Kuhl’s courtroom and snapped a photo of himself at the counsel table. He wasn’t posing for a group shot, nor trying to capture jurors or other people in the background; the photo was a solo image that appears to have been taken to mark his presence in a widely watched trial he had spent years helping to build.
Bergman later boiled down the motivation to snap this shot to the emotional toll of sitting with parents whose children had died and the cumulative pressure of the litigation. He told Judge Kuhl that he believes he was suffering from vicarious trauma from representing plaintiffs whose children died horrifically and that, on the day of the BBC interview, he “simply lost it.”
Judge Calls Bergman Out
The selfie didn’t stay private for long. Once the image went online, it quickly raised alarms at a courthouse already on edge about intense media coverage and the risk of juror exposure.
Judge Kuhl called Bergman in for a hearing focused squarely on the photo and its implications. She zeroed in on the fact that a lawyer had used his phone at counsel table in a trial involving a young abuse victim and a partially anonymous jury – not to mention the fact that the judge had repeatedly warned that unauthorized recording was off‑limits.
At that first hearing, Bergman apologized and tried to explain how the photo came to be taken and shared, but the damage was done. Judge Kuhl removed him from the plaintiffs’ steering committee, warning that his conduct threatened to impede his own clients’ case. A public embarrassment, a leadership demotion, and a stern reminder about courthouse tech rules ... not a great look for Bergman, but that could have been the end of it.
Instead, days later, Bergman compounded the problem.
From Snapshot to Sanctions
The day Mark Zuckerberg testified in court, Bergman joined a BBC interview over Zoom from inside the courthouse – again using his phone in a way that risked broadcasting the interior of a tightly controlled courtroom. That second incident landed back in front of Judge Kuhl, who now had to decide not just whether a single selfie crossed the line, but whether a lead plaintiffs’ lawyer could be trusted to follow basic rules about cameras and recording in a case involving a young abuse victim.
At a follow‑up hearing, Bergman delivered a lengthy mea culpa, describing this as the “most shameful moment of [his] legal career” and telling the court that he had self‑reported to multiple state bars and sought counseling. But this time, contrition wasn’t going to cut it for Kuhl. The judge entered a written sanctions order, fined Bergman $1,100, and made clear that he would remain off the plaintiffs’ steering committee even as the attorney continued to represent Kaley in the trial.
Takeaway For the Rest of Us
For us other lawyers, the lesson is simple: in a high‑profile case, how you handle your phone can matter as much as how you handle a witness. In an increasingly social media-centered world, judges are treating tech decorum as much more than just fine print.
Related Resources:
- DOJ Attorney’s AI‑Generated Brief Sparks Sanctions Threat After Pro Se Plaintiff Uncovers Fabricated Quotes (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- Trump DOJ Tries to Seize Control of State Bar Ethics Investigations (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- Death No Escape From Florida Bar Sanctions for Miami Attorney (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
