The social media giant Meta Inc. is fighting in federal court to prove it does not harm young people’s mental health, collect their data in violation of federal law, or have executives who made misleading statements about prioritizing profits over health.
Opening statements were presented Tuesday in an Oakland federal courtroom in a civil lawsuit brought by California and dozens of states accusing Meta of creating addictive products that harm young users’ mental health.
The civil complaint, filed in federal court in 2023 by more than two dozen attorneys general, alleges violations of consumer protection laws, making false and misleading statements, and violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, known as COPPA, by collecting data on users under age 13.
It was a strategy California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill — who presented the opening arguments for the plaintiffs — defined as “hook, hold, harvest, hide,” as she accused the company of actively seeking younger users and locking in vulnerable users with manipulative features that target children who the company’s own policies state aren’t allowed to use Meta’s social media apps, Facebook and Instagram.
Meta attorney Paul Schmidt told jurors that the states would not be able to prove any of their claims, including allegations that the company knowingly collected data on users under age 13.
States say Meta knew
The plaintiffs contend there is a mountain of evidence, including internal studies and communications, public statements and results showing the harm the company’s products have had on young people’s mental health, body image and well-being.
Central to their case is the allegation that Meta continued offering tools like filters, endless scrolls and alerts to maximize time spent on the apps by young users, and that it set goals to maximize users’ time on the apps.
“Meta said it prioritized safety over profits, but when it came time to make a decision, time and again, those profits won,” O’Neill told the jury.
Schmidt said social media companies have acknowledged the challenge of verifying users’ ages, but ideas like requiring an ID or other methods were problematic for different reasons.
On making false or misleading statements, Schmidt said during his opening that the states’ attorneys general were relying on selective and wide-ranging statements made over several years, none of which he said were false or misleading.
Among the statements the plaintiffs pointed to was a Facebook post by Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg that disputed the notion that the company prioritized profits over users’ health and well-being, a claim that is central to the states’ case.
The plaintiffs contend the opposite was true and remains business as usual at the company today.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a press conference after the day’s proceedings concluded, said the states were seeking changes in Meta’s behavior.
The states are also seeking up to $1.4 trillion in monetary relief, something a Meta spokesperson said was a cash grab disproportionate to the claims being brought.
A similar case in New Mexico was decided in that state’s favor earlier this year, resulting in a nearly $1 billion penalty for Meta that the company is appealing.
Schmidt told jurors that the issue of age verification presented challenges for tech companies and that Meta’s preferred method of regulation would be to verify users’ ages before they download products from app stores operated by Apple and Google.
But, he said, there is not currently any law requiring them to do so — nor, he pointed out, was there any law requiring Meta to verify users’ ages.
Schmidt said Meta had developed products to estimate a user’s age and would pause data collection on users suspected of being under 13.
Legal expert weighs competing arguments
Vincent Joralemon, director of the Life Sciences Law and Policy Center at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, who has been following the trial, said both sides stuck to arguments he would expect in a case like this, with Meta’s attorneys trying to frame the matter as one of free speech and the states asserting that the company knew things it wasn’t making public.
“Anything that chills speech online will have a very high bar to clear in courts,” Joralemon said. “Courts will look at the impact on everyone, not just children.”
He said the alleged Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act violations will hinge on whether Meta knew it was collecting data from underage users without taking steps to prevent it, which he said could be difficult. He said he expected the states to hew away from that claim because it “could get complicated.”
In court Tuesday, Schmidt told jurors that the attorneys general were putting the company in an impossible position because they were expecting the company to use its algorithms and data collection to detect when users were lying.
He said there was no legal requirement for Meta to verify users’ ages and, short of legislation requiring it, Meta was doing the best it could. He said that if an account is flagged as potentially misrepresenting the user’s age, data collection is paused on the account until an age can be verified. It was unclear how the company does that in any meaningful way, given the limits of the technology Schmidt described.
Joralemon said Meta had several good defenses available to it and could argue it was aware of potential harms but was doing what it could, rather than denying there were potential harms.
But, referencing the New Mexico case earlier this year that found the company liable for violating that state’s consumer protection laws, Joralemon said Meta had reason to believe the states had a strong case in pointing out that its public position was different from internal communications that raised questions about the apps’ effects on mental health.
“There’s nothing to tell me that won’t continue to be successful,” he said.
“Meta said it prioritized safety over profits, but when it came time to make a decision, time and again, those profits won.”
Megan O’Neill, California Deputy Attorney General
He said that besides statements and internal communications, whistleblowers and former employees could prove damning for the company if they convince the jury the company knew, or tried to avoid knowing, about the potential harms its products were creating for young people.
The plaintiffs’ first witness, former Meta employee and consultant Arturo Bejar, said he tried to raise concerns about the discrepancy between internal and publicly reported numbers about how many users were experiencing harm on the platforms.
He said the wellness team he worked for was “whittled down to a pebble” and seemed to be severed from getting its ideas for improving the apps into executives’ hands.
Bejar described a company that had willfully blinded itself to finding any problems, opting to know less so it could do less, despite having the technology and information available to it to make the products safer.
His testimony will continue Wednesday at the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Oakland. The trial is expected to run through September.
Note to readers: This story has been updated to include additional context and analysis from a legal expert.