On 18 August, a major legal dispute between Facebook and Instagram, owned by Meta Platforms, started in a California federal court, bringing the social media giant under heavy fire for claims that their Facebook and Instagram platforms were created in a way that could adversely affect children and teenagers. The trial, which is sponsored by 29 U.S. states, may have implications for the way Meta runs some of the world’s most popular social media platforms.
Prosecutors from the states are making their opening arguments against Meta in federal court in Oakland, California. The heart of the controversy is whether the company intentionally developed elements of Facebook and Instagram that make it hard to log off, and they are not doing enough to meet responsibilities for its potential impact on mental health and privacy.
Deputy California attorney general Megan O’Neill says that Meta’s business model was heavily driven by maximizing user engagement and getting valuable personal data. She explained that Meta’s business plan was to ‘hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data and then make them lie down before the public’.
O’Neill also added that it was “very effective with children.
The states’ claim isn’t just that social media can be harmful to teens. Rather, prosecutors are trying to prove that Meta had reason to know that the features it built and marketed kept children and teens on its platforms when it should have known these features were harmful to them.
It is a distinction that matters, since sometimes the problem isn’t social media per se, but something has happened in social media. In the opening statement, O’Neill said that online services can offer users and communities benefits. She explained to jurors that it wasn’t about taking social media down, or that Instagram should be pulled from the public.
This is not about the fact that there are some good things about social media for some people, there are, she said.
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are spearheading the broader legal action, which includes 29 states that have issues with Meta’s treatment of young users. Both together signal the increasing scrutiny of larger tech firms to provide answers about their impact on kids as governments and parents question the limits of social media for kids.
There are several areas in which the allegations are made against Meta. The four lead states claim that Facebook and Instagram were designed to be addictive to young children and teenagers. This alleged design caused significant issues, such as anxiety and depression, and, in some instances, to suicide, according to prosecutors. They further allege that Meta has misled consumers about the security of its platforms.
“Meta wanted kids, and it wanted to get those people who cared about those kids to know that those kids were safe,” said O’Neill.
Personal information of the kids is another important aspect of the case. Every 29 state is expected to file claims alleging Meta illegally collected and utilized personal information of children that used its products. This does not restrict the scope of the trial to mental health related issues. It also has wider issues concerning privacy and data gathering, and the obligations of tech firms on behalf of young users.
The privacy claims may be especially important, as data has been a longstanding cornerstone of the business model of big social media companies. Advertising and personalizing based on user activity, preferences and interactions can be very helpful. However, there are additional legal and ethical considerations with the collection and use of such information when users are children.
Meta is slated to vigorously respond to the states’ claims. The company has previously said that it has done its best to make its platforms safer for younger users and denied that it intentionally deceived users about the dangers they faced when using its products.
Meta will also claim that the states haven’t provided enough evidence that their residents were harmed as prosecutors allege. As the court weighs the evidence of a clear link between Meta’s decisions on product and the alleged injuries to young users, that defense might be a key element of the trial.
Meta’s top executives are also in the spotlight in the case. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of Facebook, and Instagram’s CEO Adam Mosseri are set to be in court. Their testimony may offer some clues as to how the company approached issues with younger consumers, product design, and platform safety.
The trial is likely to last around six weeks, and will be closely monitored by both the tech industry and policy makers. Its impact will not just be felt on Meta – the concept of addictive design and the responsibility of companies with children’s privacy concerns will have repercussions for other big online companies as well.
The trial is even more unique in its structure. The jury should provide an advisory verdict and not determine the liability of Meta. But it’s a task that falls to the U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. If they ultimately prevail, they might also have the option of civil fines and mandating changes to Facebook and Instagram.
The money may be a lot. The potential for fines could be as high as $1.4 trillion from Meta, and between $200 billion and $250 billion from the states is a more reasonable figure. The rift between the estimates reflects the potential impact of the legal battle on the company.
While it may affect finances, the changes mandated by the court may have a more lasting effect on the platforms that the company owns. Requirements that relate to children’s safety, privacy protections or product design could compel the company to change some of the core features of Facebook and Instagram.
