On Wednesday, August 12, Meta Platforms, also known as Meta, is set to face a highly anticipated trial in the federal court in Oakland, California over a lawsuit involving youth social media. State attorneys general from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey have accused Meta’s Facebook and Instagram of intentionally designing features that can lead children and teenagers to addiction, as well as providing misleading information on platform safety.
The multi-district litigation (MDL) involves 29 states, but the Oakland trial will primarily focus on the accusations from the mentioned four states and the coalition of 29 states alleging Meta’s illegal collection and use of children’s data, violating federal laws.
The trial is expected to last about 7 weeks, with the selection of an “advisory jury” starting on Wednesday (note: this type of jury is rare, where the judge can consider their opinions on specific issues but not bound by their decisions), and opening statements scheduled to begin on August 18. Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are expected to testify.
Meta has stated that if the states win, the company could face damages of up to $1.4 trillion (close to its $1.5 trillion market value), but the specific amount of damages sought by the states’ attorneys general has not been publicly disclosed. The states are also seeking court orders for Meta to implement age restrictions, remove infinite scrolling features, make broader adjustments to content recommendation algorithms, notifications, and young users’ usage time.
A spokesperson for Meta expressed strong opposition to these allegations, stating that the company believes the evidence will prove its long-standing commitment to fulfilling promises made to young users.
In a statement, the spokesperson said, “We have listened to parents’ feedback and conducted thorough research in collaboration with experts and law enforcement to understand key issues.”
The lawsuits from these states were filed in 2023, stemming from a multi-state investigation into the impact of Instagram and Facebook on young users, which followed disclosures by Meta whistleblower Frances Haugen revealing Meta’s knowledge of potential harm to young users from its products and how to make them safer.
Haugen testified before the U.S. Senate committee in 2021, stating that Meta knowingly allowed harm to young users, knew how to improve, but chose not to make these changes in pursuit of higher profits.
Jennifer Davenport, the Attorney General of New Jersey, stated before the trial, “As we allege in our lawsuit, Meta knows that its platform harms children and teenagers but continues to let children become addicted to it. Our children should not be used for profit.”
A recent poll last week found that the vast majority of Americans (85%) believe that social media can cause addiction in children, with 61% of respondents stating that social media companies need stricter regulations.
The trial that began on Wednesday is one of thousands of lawsuits filed by various states, municipalities, school districts, and individuals across the U.S., alleging that these social media companies’ products harm young users.
Meta has mentioned that the numerous lawsuits could significantly impact its business and financial performance.
Last week, a judge in New Mexico ruled that Meta should be held accountable for the state’s child mental health crisis and ordered it to pay $567 million for addressing the harm caused to young people by its platform and mandated changes to platform features. This amount was in addition to the $375 million in civil penalties previously awarded by the jury, totaling $942 million.
The company also reached a settlement with a school district in Kentucky in a lawsuit scheduled for June.
Meta denies the allegations in these cases, asserting that the company has always been committed to protecting children on its platform and cannot mislead consumers, and that “social media addiction” is not a recognized mental illness.
Eric Goldman, a professor and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law, stated, “The substantial damages and judicial requirements regarding platform functionalities could pose an existential threat to social media defendants.”
(Reuters reporting referenced in this article)