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
Sign up for alerts on breaking news and exclusive reporting from NPR
OAKLAND, Calif. – A landmark trial got underway on Tuesday pitting Meta Platforms against a consortium of states accusing the company of designing its platforms to hook young users and misleading the public about it.
The case is the latest in a web of litigation that aims to hold social media companies accountable for alleged harms to the mental health of young people.
"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," California Deputy Attorney General Megan O'Neill said in her opening statement on behalf of the states.
"It was especially bad for kids," she said.
The stakes in this case are sky-high, with an initial estimate of potential penalties as high as $1.4 trillion — roughly the entire value of Meta's equity on the Nasdaq. Some legal experts compare this moment to landmark litigation against tobacco companies in the 1990s that forced them into big settlements and changed their behavior — and the public discussion about the risks of cigarettes.
Lawyers representing California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey allege that Meta designed its flagship products, Instagram and Facebook, to be addictive to minors with algorithms that "encourage compulsive use" and features like infinite scroll, photo filters and the "like" button. The states say the company knew the platforms were dangerous to kids, but publicly downplayed the risks.
The states also accuse Meta of violating the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, by gathering personal data about users under 13 and not getting parental consent.
Meta has denied these allegations, and in a statement emailed to NPR, said the states' claims are unsubstantiated, and that the company stands by its record of creating strong protections for teens, including enhanced privacy settings and a one-hour timer on Instagram to remind them to close the app.
In court, Paul Schmidt, a lawyer for Meta, argued that the states were cherry picking data points, statements and studies made by Meta out of context, and made the case that Meta was cognizant of the risks to young people and made meaningful efforts to address them.
"Let me be clear: Meta has talked over the years about people struggling with social media," he said in his opening statement to the 8-member advisory jury.
And while Schmidt said there was no dispute that some teens struggle to manage their time on social media apps, or that people can use them to post negative things, "That's something Meta takes seriously, and tries to act on."
"From our perspective, much of this lawsuit is about the government attorneys and their witnesses saying, 'In trying to improve, we'd do it a little differently. In talking about how to improve, we disagree with how you talk about it.' It's meaningful, and the evidence will be meaningful, these efforts Meta has taken to improve," he said.
Social media companies have previously been shielded from some legal actions thanks to both the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says they are not accountable for content posted on them by users.
