People line up outside the Oakland, California federal courthouse ahead of opening arguments in the trial that four state attorneys general are bringing against Meta Platforms, Inc.
John Ruwitch/NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
John Ruwitch/NPR
Sign up for alerts on breaking news and exclusive reporting from NPR
OAKLAND, Calif. – In federal court in Oakland, a lawyer for a group of states launched strong accusations against Meta Platforms on Tuesday. This marks the beginning of a crucial trial among a series of cases aimed at holding social media companies accountable for their alleged impact on young users’ mental health.
“Meta’s business model can be encapsulated in four words: ‘hook’ the users, ‘hold’ them as long as possible, ‘harvest’ their data, and ‘hide’ the truth from the public in their statements,” California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill stated during her opening remarks.
“It was particularly harmful to children,” she added.
This case carries significant implications, with potential penalties initially estimated at up to $1.4 trillion, equivalent to Meta’s entire equity value on Nasdaq. Some legal experts draw parallels to the landmark tobacco litigation of the 1990s, which resulted in large settlements and a shift in public discourse regarding the dangers of smoking.
Attorneys for California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey claim that Meta crafted Instagram and Facebook to be addictive for minors, using algorithms that promote compulsive use and features such as infinite scroll, photo filters, and the “like” button. The states contend that the company was aware of the risks these platforms posed to children but misled the public.
The states also charge Meta with breaching the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting data from users under 13 without parental consent.
Meta has refuted these allegations, and the company’s legal team is set to present their opening arguments next.
In an email to NPR, Meta declared the states’ claims baseless and defended its track record on teen safety, highlighting its enhanced privacy settings and a one-hour reminder on Instagram to prompt users to close the app.
Historically, social media companies have been protected from certain legal actions by the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from liability for user-generated content.
However, this trial takes a different approach by targeting the design of Facebook and Instagram, arguing that their design keeps young users engaged longer, thereby boosting Meta’s revenue while harming children’s mental health.
O’Neill outlined the states’ arguments, which heavily rely on internal Meta communications and studies that, according to the states, contradict the company’s public statements.
She referenced a 2016 internal email highlighting Instagram’s “overall company goal” as maximizing “teen time spent” on the platform. She also mentioned a study titled “Long Term Retention: The Young Ones Are The Best Ones,” which examined tween usage and concluded that early use increases the likelihood of long-term platform engagement and revenue generation.
Despite these findings, O’Neill claimed that Meta’s executives downplayed or denied the platforms’ addictiveness. “Meta claimed to prioritize safety over profits, but in reality, profits often took precedence,” she asserted.
Meta has already faced defeats in two state court cases this year on similar grounds. In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google liable for causing depression and anxiety in a young woman who started using social media as a small child, awarding her $6 million in damages.
In a separate case, a New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million and implement new safety measures after a jury concluded that the company failed to protect young users from child sexual exploitation.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized the increased stakes in the current case.
“If the trend continues, they will lose again, face significant penalties, and be compelled to make necessary changes,” Bonta told NPR in an interview prior to the trial’s start. He expressed his belief that Meta could modify its products to be non-addictive and safe for children while remaining highly successful as a business.
“Our goal is for Meta to stop harming our children, stop knowingly inflicting harm, and cease using features that they know cause mental health issues for kids. It’s straightforward,” he said. “Most parents, guardians, and teachers are aware of these harms and want them to end.”
Though an initial estimate, later challenged by Meta, suggested potential maximum penalties of about $1.4 trillion, Bonta clarified that the states were not pursuing a specific amount and accused Meta of using that figure to portray the case as unreasonable.
When asked about an appropriate figure, he did not specify. “Their revenue was $200 billion last year, so perhaps that amount would be suitable. Maybe more, maybe less,” he remarked.
Legal experts believe Meta, which reported in late July that an average of 3.6 billion people use its platforms daily, is likely to appeal any adverse ruling, potentially reaching the Supreme Court.
The trial is overseen by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who previously handled the high-profile lawsuit involving Tesla CEO Elon Musk against OpenAI. The proceedings are expected to last about six weeks, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg anticipated to testify.
Last week, the judge rejected Meta’s attempt to prevent whistleblower Arturo Bejar, a former senior Meta engineer, from testifying, describing it as a “‘Hail Mary’ attempt to eliminate a strong witness for the plaintiffs.” Bejar, who had interactions with senior Meta executives, testified before the Senate in 2023 that the company was aware of the harm its platforms caused to children and teens but did not take action.
Note: The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a charity founded by Zuckerberg and his wife, is a financial supporter of NPR.
