In the intricate dance of litigation, where every step counts, it’s ironically the missteps in technology use that have sidelined a key attorney in a major lawsuit against Big Tech. The case, which accuses social media giants of addicting children to their platforms, took a surprising turn when lawyer Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center, was demoted for violating technology rules within the courtroom.

Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, overseeing the high-profile case, expressed her dwindling patience after Bergman committed yet another tech-related faux pas. This time, he was caught conducting an interview with the BBC within the confines of the courthouse where recording is strictly prohibited. The incident occurred just as Mark Zuckerberg, a pivotal figure in the litigation, took the witness stand.

In what could be seen as an emotional response to the day’s events, Bergman described his actions as a lapse caused by the overwhelming nature of the proceedings. He presented a full contrition package to Judge Kuhl, admitting his oversight and expressing deep shame. “The day was so emotionally overcoming that I lost sight of my obligation as an officer of this court,” Bergman lamented.

However, remorse was not enough to save his position. Judge Kuhl removed him from the plaintiffs’ steering committee, although his firm remains represented. Bergman’s tech missteps didn’t stop at the unauthorized interview; he is also facing a citation for allegedly taking a photo inside the courtroom, with a contempt hearing scheduled for March 23.

“The things you’re doing are threatening to impede your clients’ pursuit of their claims,” Judge Kuhl told him during the proceedings. Bergman acknowledged the irony of his situation, given the nature of the case centered on tech accountability. “In a case about tech accountability, the fact that I was not accountable on tech issues in this court is resonant, it is humbling, and I am deeply sorry,” he stated.

This incident highlights the critical need for adherence to legal protocols, especially in cases that scrutinize the ethical responsibilities of large tech companies. It serves as a stark reminder that in the realm of law, even those advocating against tech-induced missteps are not immune to the pitfalls of digital misconduct.