More than half of the states in the United States have united in a groundbreaking legal action against Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook. The lawsuit, which enters trial this Tuesday in federal court in Oakland, California, accuses the company of knowingly creating addictive products that have harmful effects on young users.
This trial is anticipated to span six to eight weeks and will feature testimony from prominent figures, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri, and whistleblower Arturo Béjar. According to California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, “Meta designed a dangerous product for young users, knew it to be dangerous, and then misled children, families, and the community about its dangers.”
The case is being led by attorneys representing California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, although the original lawsuit encompasses all 29 states involved in what is classified as multidistrict litigation.
Filed in October 2023, the 233-page lawsuit alleges that Meta routinely collects data on children under 13 without parental consent, in violation of federal and state regulations. The states contend that Meta “refuses to abandon its use of known harmful features” and is primarily motivated by profit to “maximize its financial gains.”
If Meta is found liable, the states predict damages could reach as high as $200 billion, an amount mirroring the company’s expected annual revenue for 2025. They are also seeking to mandate changes to the design of Meta’s products to enhance safety for children, a move that could have lingering implications beyond mere financial penalties.
In response to the allegations, Meta has denied all claims and stated, “Rather than focusing on the facts or the law, the states are pursuing an unrealistic financial windfall.” The company criticized the lawsuit as unsubstantiated and disproportionate, pointing out that the states have not provided evidence that anyone was misled by their practices.
The lawsuit also highlights that Meta has developed and refined features designed to maximize user engagement, such as infinite scrolling algorithms and constant notifications. The attorneys general argue that these features particularly affect young people, leading to significant mental health issues, including depression and anxiety.
Internal studies by Meta are expected to be showcased during the trial, revealing insights from a 2019 survey of 2,500 teenagers, which indicated a clear awareness among youth regarding the negative impact of Instagram on their mental health.
Mounting Lawsuits
The federal trial follows closely on the heels of a judge’s recent decision that ordered Meta to pay $567 million to New Mexico as part of a similar case brought forth by the state’s attorney general. This marks the second financial penalty imposed on Meta in New Mexico, raising the total owed to $942 million. Additionally, a state trial in Tennessee is currently ongoing.
Numerous families, school districts, and other attorney generals have filed thousands of lawsuits against Meta and other social media platforms in recent years. This coordinated approach aims to compel Meta to enhance the safety of its social networks.
In California alone, a wave of lawsuits has been filed against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. In February, a jury ruled against Meta and YouTube, ordering them to pay $6 million to a plaintiff in the first case to reach trial, while TikTok and Snap settled before going to trial.
Many of these legal efforts draw parallels with the approach taken against tobacco companies in the 1990s, which emphasized the addictive nature of products and the industry’s awareness of their dangers. Attorney General Russell Coleman from Kentucky expressed that this strategy is intended to demonstrate how Meta concealed the harms associated with its products targeted at young people.
Editor’s Take
This ongoing trial could significantly reshape how social media companies operate, especially concerning young users’ welfare. Should the states succeed, it may compel Meta and similar platforms to implement safer designs, potentially affecting their business models. As legal scrutiny intensifies, it poses critical questions about responsibility in the digital age.
Source: www.theguardian.com
