Legal experts say the legal system in the United States is about to get its biggest challenge yet in social media litigation, as Meta Platforms faces a group of state attorneys general in a federal court in California. The trial, which is set to commence Wednesday in Oakland, marks a turning point in the worldwide discussion on the duty of tech companies towards young people, and the possible impact of platform design decisions aimed at engagement rather than wellbeing.
Colorado, Kentucky, California and New Jersey are among the 29 states that are coordinating their legal action against the tech giant, with the former three states leading the charge claiming Meta knowingly designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and teenagers. The states’ attorneys will try to prove that the company was not only engineering its platforms to keep younger users more engaged, but also misled consumers that there were adequate steps in place to ensure the safety of vulnerable groups. Also, the lawsuit claims that Meta wrongfully gathered and used children’s data, which could be in violation of federal privacy regulations designed to protect minors from data exploitation.
I can’t help but think of when I first began monitoring this case, and started hearing from parents in my own community who have been increasingly frustrated with their kids’ screen time and the seemingly endless scroll that keeps them attached to their phones long after bedtime. In a way, these anecdotal recollections are remarkably consistent with the main points that will be offered by state attorneys general during the next few weeks to the jury.
The trial will proceed with a jury selection process beginning Wednesday and opening statements expected to begin Aug. 18, giving both sides ample time to put their case together. Some of the industry’s biggest names will be in attendance for the courtroom, such as the CEO and founder of Facebook, Zuckerberg, where he was on top when the decision was made to keep the platform in English and its design will be subject to heavy scrutiny. Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri also will be on the witness stands, and could provide detail about the features the states claim make Instagram so addictive for younger users.
The exposure of the company is huge, with company officials saying that damages could be as high as $1.4 trillion, just short of the company’s current market cap. The litigating attorneys general, who have not publically indicated what they’ll ask for, have certainly gotten Wall Street’s financial analysts and techies around the world to sit up and take notice at the potential liability. This financial burden is indicative of the seriousness of the situation, with legal experts noting the case has significant implications for Meta’s business model and social media as a whole.
In addition, the state attorneys general are seeking injunctive relief to requireMeta to make significant changes to its platforms. They’ve asked for platforms to impose age restrictions, ban infinite scroll, and make other changes to make the platforms less addictive. If ordered by the court, such changes would mark a paradigm shift in the way social media companies create their user experiences and would set new precedents for how youth are protected from the digital ecosystem.
Meta, in response to the increasing legal pressure, stood by its position that the accusations are baseless. “We strongly disputed the claims and were confident that evidence would demonstrate its long history of promoting young people’s development and interest,” the spokesperson said. The company has repeatedly made a point to reach out to parents, experts and law enforcement to better appreciate and tackle the concerns of young users. The spokesperson added that “we’ve heard from the parents, consulted experts and law enforcement and done extensive analysis of the issues that are most important.
The lawsuit came out of a larger trend that has been gaining momentum after 2021 whistleblower Frances Haugen made public comments about Meta’s internal study on young people’s mental health to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. While Haugen acknowledged that the company “knew” the products were likely to harm youth, Haugen said it also knew it had the means to make the products safer, but it opted for greater profits over the health of its youngest customers.
The trial comes after a growing number of years of worry over the impact of social media on youth in the United States and around the world. The outcome of this case will be a blueprint for technology regulations and enforcement in the future—particularly in other countries. The litigation proceedings will likely present a wide range of issues regarding corporate responsibility, the extent of product design responsibility, and the right balance between innovation and consumer protection.
As far as I’m concerned, the trial has highlighted for me the underlying conflicts between business and social obligations and, crucially, the business obligations of tech companies and their obligations to society, particularly to those that are the most vulnerable to manipulation and damage. The case also brings to mind deep concerns about whether laws are adequate to solve the specific problems created by algorithms with the specific mission of driving engagement, regardless of the cost.
Judges, lawyers, tech policy experts and proponents on both sides of the debate will watch the evidence closely in the trial. The proceedings will explore the research, thinking and design decisions that Meta has made internally and the specific design choices the states object to as evidence of intentional exploit of the psychological vulnerabilities of young users. The jury will decide if the company went too far in innovating its product and into committing illegal acts that have proven to cause harm.
