Meta Faces Trial Over Claims It Made Facebook and Instagram Addictive to Children

Meta stands trial in a federal court in California over allegations that it engineered Facebook and Instagram to entice children and teenagers into compulsive use, while concealing risks and breaching child privacy laws. The suit was initiated on August 18 by California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, representing 29 U.S. states. Meta rejects the claims.

The states accuse Meta of employing features like infinite scrolling, recommendation systems, notifications, and likes to maximize engagement with young users. They contend that the company was aware of the potential harm but failed to address known issues and misled the public about safety practices. The states are seeking financial penalties and amendments to Facebook and Instagram.

Expected to last six to eight weeks, the trial will be presided over by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who will render her decision after reviewing evidence presented by an advisory jury. Testimonies from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri, and former Meta engineering director Arturo Béjar are anticipated.

Béjar, who had previously worked at Meta from 2009 to 2015, now serves as a contractor focusing on teenagers' experiences on Instagram. He testified about repeatedly expressing concerns about harmful experiences reported by young users to Meta executives, including Zuckerberg, who seemingly did not take adequate measures to rectify the situation. Béjar described the company's approach as "don't ask, don't tell."

The states have also presented internal research and communications, including Meta's study of adolescent development and how young users interact with platform features. Prosecutors argue that Meta exploited this knowledge to boost engagement while downplaying potential risks in public statements. However, Meta's defense asserts that internal documents and specific product decisions do not demonstrate that the company intentionally designed its services to cause addiction or mental-health problems.

The company highlights its safety measures for younger users and claims to have disabled over a million accounts belonging to children under 13. Moreover, Meta contests the states' use of internal research, arguing that it has cherry-picked documents and statements out of context to portray product decisions as evidence of intentional misconduct.

To win the case, the states must prove explicit statutory violations, rather than merely showing that some young people suffered harm on Facebook or Instagram.

Potential penalties and changes to Facebook and Instagram could be substantial, with state attorneys general estimating a realistic penalty of US$200 billion, while Meta predicts a potential total of US$1.4 trillion in cumulative statutory assessments. The states are also requesting the court to mandate changes to Meta's products, such as stronger age controls and modifications to features considered to encourage excessive use.

A favorable ruling could consequently impact Meta's design and operation of Facebook and Instagram, beyond any financial penalty. The federal case follows a separate New Mexico judgment, where a state judge ordered Meta to pay US$567 million into a fund for addressing harm to young people, adding to Meta's US$942 million total liability in the New Mexico case.

The court also mandated changes involving age verification and protections against child exploitation. While the New Mexico ruling targets a specific issue, the Oakland case presents a more extensive challenge, covering product design, internal knowledge, user privacy, and public representations. The outcome of this case could significantly influence future state efforts to regulate social media platforms used by children.