Decisive trial against Meta begins: ‘They knew their platforms could harm young people’

Meta, the technology group founded by Mark Zuckerberg, which owns social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, presented its arguments on Tuesday during the first day of the most decisive trial in its history, in which a massive damages award that could impact its business is at stake. Four U.S. states — California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey — accuse the company’s social networks of being responsible for an epidemic affecting young people’s mental health. Federal judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is presiding over the case, which will likely determine the future of social media in the United States because of the harm it causes young people.

Megan O’Neill, deputy attorney general of California, told the eight jurors during the opening session at a federal court in Oakland that Meta’s business model “can be summed up in four simple words: ‘hook’ the users, ‘hold’ them for as long as they can, ‘harvest’ their data, and then ‘hide’ the truth from the public when making public statements.” “It was especially bad for kids,” she added.

California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey accuse the social media giant of causing an epidemic of poor mental health among young people by designing technology to create addiction, misleading the public about the harms of its platforms, and collecting data on children aged under 13 without consent. State prosecutors from those four states, chosen for this first federal trial from among the 29 states that have sued Meta, argue that the tech company violated federal child privacy laws and state consumer protection laws.

Meta faces a combined claim of nearly $1.4 trillion, a figure the company cites to argue the suit is disproportionate. That amount is roughly equivalent to the market value of the California-based group. Although prosecutors have not specified the exact amount or scope of damages sought, they acknowledged last week that the figure could be around $200 billion, an amount that would equal about three years of Meta’s net profits. Meta’s shares have lost almost 30% of their value over the past 12 months amid its aggressive spending on artificial intelligence and the buildup of pending lawsuits, for which it has set aside $2.4 billion, according to its second-quarter filings.

The deputy attorney general of California told the jury the case was not about banning Instagram or social media. “This case is not about whether social media has some benefits for some people. It does,” she said.

The group founded by Zuckerberg presented its arguments on Tuesday against the case. They claim that state prosecutors have failed to prove any actual harm caused by Facebook and Instagram. They also contend that the platforms are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech, and by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which shields social networks from liability for content posted by their users.

“The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges,” Liza Crenshaw, a Meta spokeswoman, said in a statement. “Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout,” she added.

The trial is expected to last between six and eight weeks, during which Meta chief executive Zuckerberg and other company employees are expected to testify. Prosecutors will seek to unseal internal documents to try to prove that the company knew about harm to teenagers’ health. An eight-person jury will issue an advisory verdict, which Judge Gonzalez Rogers will consider before issuing her ruling and setting any damages award.

“Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to keep kids on the platforms longer and longer — to the point of physical and mental harm,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “Exploiting our most vulnerable residents to boost corporate profits is not only morally wrong, it’s also illegal,” he added.

Prosecutors will try to show how the platform designed its social networks with mechanisms that kept young users connected for longer. They cite infinite scrolling, the “like” button, the recommendation algorithm, and image filters, which promote eating disorders, as elements that contribute to compulsive social media use and fuel teen anxiety.

They will argue that the company benefits from this system because its main revenue source is advertising sold on the basis of hours of service consumed. State officials will present evidence to try to show that the company knew the risks of these practices and held internal meetings to discuss how to address them.

“Nearly three years ago, we took action because we believed Meta was putting profits ahead of the health and safety of our kids. Now we are ready to present the evidence and make our case,” Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said. “Meta knew its platforms could harm young people, yet continued practices designed to keep them hooked — sacrificing sleep, being distracted in school, and even considering suicide — because more time online meant more money for Meta.”

The trial that began Tuesday in Oakland is the most high-profile of the more than 1,500 lawsuits facing social media companies. In addition to the states, parents’ groups, school districts, city governments, and individuals have filed lawsuits against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap for the harm caused to young people’s mental health — in a movement that bears many similarities to the campaign against the major tobacco companies in the 1990s.

At that time, tobacco companies also faced thousands of lawsuits in trials that ran for years. That movement helped establish recognition of tobacco’s harmful effects and judges began to acknowledge the damages caused by consumption. That crusade gave rise to legal strategies now being used against big tech, such as publishing internal documents, staff testimony, and arguing design defects, among other legal avenues, to support damage claims.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition