The Instagram app is displayed on a smartphone screen.
OAKLAND — A California prosecutor has accused Meta of designing social-media platforms to maximize the screen time of young users, turning a blind eye toward the number of preteens on Instagram and Facebook, and falsely assuring the public that its sites are safe.
Meta, parent company of social media platforms Facebook and Instagram, however, said the accusations leveled by lawyers for California and other states are too simplistic, and fail to account for the societal benefits of social media and the efforts Meta says it has taken to prevent harm to teens, and especially to prevent harm to children who may interact with its social media products.
In what has been billed as the largest consumer-protection lawsuit in U.S. history, opening arguments unfolded Tuesday in Oakland federal court, where a coalition of 29 states alleged that the social-media giant engaged in unfair and deceptive practices that violated state consumer-protection laws and the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
In opening statements for the states, California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill told a panel of jurors the state governments believe Facebook and Instagram have consistently published misleading reports and statements saying users of their platforms suffered low rates of negative or harmful experiences.
But attorneys general for the four states litigating the case – California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey – argue that research and scientists have shown that the use of Meta’s platforms harms young users because it is associated with depression, anxiety, insomnia and body dysmorphia.
“Meta's business model can be summed up in four simple parts: Hook the users, hold them as long as they can, harvest their data and then hide the truth from the public when making public statements,” O’Neill said in her opening statement.
COPPA bars social media companies from harvesting the data of children under 13 without getting their parents’ permission, she said, and yet internal Meta documents indicate that 20% to 30% of American pre-teens are using Instagram.
From 2019 to 2021, the social-media companies put out “drumbeat messages” in blogs, in press releases and in statements to Congress that they prioritized online safety over profits, but their own conduct showed this was not true, according to O’Neill.
She said the states, through the presentation of internal Meta documents and communications, as well as through expert witnesses and whistleblowing former Meta employees, would show the company knew about the risks of the platforms to children but did little to combat it.
Company documents indicate one in five teens surveyed said time on Instagram made them feel worse about themselves, according to O’Neill. A Meta survey of Instagram users age 13 to 15 years old in 2021 found that in the previous seven days, 27% of them witnessed bullying on the platform, 21% experienced a “negative comparison” involving clothing or other personal preferences, 19% had seen nudity and nearly 13% saw some form of violence, she said.
In addition, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg brought back “cosmetic surgery” filters on the app after they were initially banned due to potential negative effects to youths’ self-image, the attorney said.
“The well-being of our kids is a shared responsibility,” O’Neill told the jurors, “... We’re going to ask you to hold Meta accountable.”
But Meta countered in its opening statement that though the company is in business to make money, it has a corporate culture designed to improve services and develop tools to curb teens from using the platforms late into the night.
Meta’s opening statement was delivered by attorney Paul Schmidt, of the firm of Covington & Burling, of New York.
Schmidt told jurors that the state lawyers have taken surveys and certain statements by company officials out of context. He noted that, while one in five teens said Instagram use makes them feel worse about themselves, about 80% of those same teens said use of the site made them feel better about themselves or had no impact.
Keeping those under 13 off the sites is a challenge because COPPA does not require companies to ask users for their age, and age verification based on documents such as credit cards or government identification is problematic, according to Schmidt, adding that only 4% of Facebook users are teens.
He said the “cosmetic filter” issue discussed by the states’ lawyers is more complicated than they described because Meta received pushback from creators saying the initial ban on such filters could harm their creative abilities. And under Meta’s current policy, the platforms won’t provide or recommend cosmetic filters, but members are allowed to post such content, Schmidt said.
The attorney also defended Meta’s efforts to keep those under age 13 off its platforms, saying that over a four-year period Meta disabled 1.4 million questionable accounts.
“That is acting in a meaningful way to remove underage users,” Schmidt said.
