Mark Zuckerberg has been testifying under oath in Los Angeles in what is already considered the largest trial in history against a social network. And each session leaves uncomfortable headlines for Meta.
What is happening. A Los Angeles court judges whether Instagram is a platform designed to hook minors. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified as KGM, alleges that she became addicted to Instagram when she was nine years old and that it ruined her mental health during her adolescence.
It is not the only case, since behind this trial there are more than 1,600 plaintiffshundreds of families and more than 250 school districts with similar complaints against Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap. These last two reached a financial agreement before the trial began. Meta and Google are still in.
Tobacco. The parallel that is most repeated in the American media is that of the tobacco companies in the nineties, since the companies that knew about the damage caused by their products hid it and paid for the consequences decades later in court. Here the accusation holds that Meta designed features like the infinite scroll‘likes’, push notifications… All with the deliberate objective of maximizing the time that users spent in the app, including minors. The company’s internal documents are being the heaviest ammunition in the trial.
What those documents say. During cross-examination, the plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, was presenting emails and internal messages from Meta before the jury. One of the most striking: a researcher from the company itself wrote in an email that “Instagram is a drug… we are basically traffickers,” according to shared the Financial Times. Another document, from 2018, estimated that in 2015 there were four million users under the age of 13 on Instagram, which was equivalent to approximately 30% of all American children between 10 and 12 years old. Zuckerberg had declared before Congress that minors under that age could not use the platform.
Where the testimony squeaks. Zuckerberg insisted before the jury that Meta never aimed to maximize the time users spent in the app, that the company focuses on long-term “value” and “utility.” The problem is that the accusation brought to the table emails of his from between 2013 and 2022 in which this increase in screen time appears explicitly as an internal goal. He also presented documents from Adam Mosseri, director of Instagram, with specific objectives: reaching 40 minutes of daily use in 2023 and 46 minutes in 2026. Zuckerberg responded that these data are “milestones” to measure results, not objectives in themselves.
lyou filters. One of the most tense moments of the statement came with questions about Instagram filters, you know, the ones that users can apply to their face through the camera. In 2019, Meta temporarily suspended them to study its impact. 18 experts consulted by the company itself concluded that they caused well-being problems, especially among adolescents, with effects linked to body dysmorphia. Zuckerberg decided to lift the restriction as well. At the trial he explained that he preferred “to err on the side of giving people the opportunity to express themselves” and that the restrictions seemed “paternalistic” to him.
The prosecution also showed the jury an email from Margaret Stewart, then vice president of product design at Meta, warning that, although he would comply with Zuckerberg’s decision, he did not believe it was “the right decision given the risks.”
Between the lines. What makes this trial especially delicate for Meta is not only what Zuckerberg says now, but the distance between that story and what has been revealed over time through internal documentation and emails. The accusation opts for a strategy in order to show that the company knew about it, that it discussed it internally and that it still prioritized the growth of its platform.
What is at stake? Goal. An unfavorable ruling in Los Angeles would not only be an economic blow, as it would set a precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits that are waiting in courts across the country (and around the globe, perhaps). For now, there are similar cases planned for this summer in Northern California, focused on the impact on schools, and another trial already underway in New Mexico where the state attorney general accuses Meta of failing to protect minors from sexual predators on its platforms.
“For the first time, Meta’s CEO will have to sit before a jury, under oath, and explain why the company launched a product that its own safety teams warned was addictive and harmful to children,” counted Matt Bergman, attorney representing hundreds of plaintiffs.
And now what. The trial is expected to last until the end of March, according to they count from Bloomberg. Meta maintains its defense on two fronts: that science does not prove that social networks are addictive and that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exempts them from responsibility for the content that users publish. The prosecution, however, insists that the case is not about content, but about deliberate decisions about how the application is built.
Cover image | Solen Feyissa and Wikimedia Commons
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings