In the US, on 18 August, a court began hearing a case against Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram. The plaintiffs are four states – California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey – representing the interests of children and teenagers, as well as their parents.
The original claim, filed back in 2023, was brought on behalf of 29 US states. Meta is accused of deliberately using technologies that make young people addicted to social media interaction for commercial gain. At the same time, it is alleged that the company failed to warn young users of the potential harm.
The claimants are seeking $1.4 trillion in compensation for non-pecuniary damage from Meta, as well as changes to the design of its products. They believe the design should be brought into line with the requirements of the Consumer Protection Act, which, in their view, Meta is breaching. Furthermore, they allege that the Child Protection Act has also been breached.
“We are prepared to prove that they (Meta – ed.) are deceiving users about the dangers of Facebook and Instagram. They are prioritising profit over the health of an entire generation of young people,” said New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport in an interview with NPR.
The lawsuit alleges that Meta uses technologies on its social media platforms that capture users’ attention and compel them to spend as much time as possible on the platforms: the ability to ‘like’ posts, the ability to scroll endlessly, and recommendations to enable algorithms that ‘fuel an obsessive desire to stay online’. According to the plaintiffs, this generates revenue for the company through ad impressions. The longer children remain on social media and the more advertising is specifically targeted at them, the greater Meta’s profits.
The claim also states that Meta neglects the safety of children and teenagers by creating products that prevent children from studying and sleeping, whilst photo filters may contribute to dissatisfaction with their own appearance and eating disorders. The claimants argue that Meta is aware that ‘millions’ of its users are under the age of 13 – even though it has set this age limit for its social media platforms itself – and that the company collected their personal information without parental consent.
Meta’s lawyers responded by stating that the company always prioritises the safety of its users, and that ‘social media addiction’ does not exist. They expressed regret that the claimants fail to recognise the benefits social media brings, opening up new opportunities for communication, education and creativity. Meta’s lead lawyer, Paul Schmidt, presented statistics claiming that only about one in five children admit that social media makes them feel worse; instead, 41 per cent of children say that social media improves their lives, whilst a further 41 per cent see no impact whatsoever on their quality of life.
The court hearings are expected to last at least six weeks.