Meta Faces Lawsuit Over Social Media Addiction Claims

A court has heard claims that Meta has intentionally hooked a generation of children on Facebook and Instagram, kicking off a momentous legal challenge against the social media giant.

The jury in Oakland, California, is poised to spend the next six weeks examining allegations brought forth by attorneys representing several US states during this high-profile trial.

Beginning with opening statements, a California attorney asserted that Meta allowed “millions” of 11 and 12-year-olds on Instagram and largely failed to prevent their access.

Conversely, Meta’s representative countered that the actual number of such users is just over 100,000 and insisted that social media addiction is not a real phenomenon.

The California lawyer charged that Meta was aware that its platforms could have detrimental effects on the mental health of teenagers. However, Meta argued that positive experiences of users are frequently overlooked.

The states involved in the lawsuit are pursuing billions of dollars from Meta while also calling for changes to Instagram and Facebook, including the elimination of “like” counts and the infinite scroll feature that keeps users engaged endlessly.

In her opening arguments, lead attorney Megan O’Neill heavily referenced a trove of documents from Meta that included internal research, employee emails, and chat logs, some of which reached the top echelons of the company, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

One internal report indicated that “teens have an addict’s narrative about use.” Another piece of research revealed that the design of features meant to prolong user engagement is “inherently at odds with well-being and take away from people’s ability to focus on activity that adds value to their lives,” O’Neill pointed out.

O’Neill’s remarks highlighted a stark contrast between public statements from Meta about the safety of their platforms for young users and the troubling findings from their own internal studies. She summarized Meta’s strategy succinctly: “Hook the users; hold them for as long as they can; harvest their data; hide the truth from the public when making public statements.”

She added that while Meta claims it prioritizes safety over profits, the evidence of their decision-making suggests otherwise. “Time and again, when it came to make a decision, profits won,” O’Neill stated.

In response, Paul Schmidt, a lead attorney for Meta, directly challenged the internal research cited by O’Neill. He acknowledged a concerning statistic that indicated “1 in 5 teens says Instagram makes them feel worse,” yet also noted that 41% of teens reported feeling better on the platform and another 41% said it had no effect.

Schmidt aimed to dismantle the assertion that Meta had intentionally engaged in practices to hook children and teens as users. He reiterated Meta’s stance, shared in previous litigation this year, that social media addiction does not exist.

He stated, “There can be no dispute that Meta has recognized people struggle, or can struggle, with their use of social media, and has come up with tools to try and address that.” Schmidt pointed to statements from Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri indicating that their platforms were not designed to be addictive.