Meta Trial Opens With Debate Over Instagram’s Impact on Teens

The trial against Meta began Tuesday with opposing arguments over the company’s impact on children and teenagers who use Facebook and Instagram. Attorneys debated internal company research, privacy requirements, age verification and allegations that Meta designed its platforms to encourage excessive use.

Meta Challenges Claims About Instagram’s Effect on Teens

Paul Schmidt, Meta’s lead attorney, cited an internal investigation report referenced during California’s opening statement. The report found that approximately one in five teenagers said Instagram made them feel “sick.”

However, Schmidt emphasized that the same report found that 41% of teens said Instagram made them feel better, while another 41% said the platform had no effect on them.

“That’s a pretty bad story,” Schmidt said before asking jurors to consider the report’s broader findings.

Meta Defends Its Age-Verification Practices

Schmidt also challenged the states’ argument that Meta failed to prevent children under 13 from accessing its platforms. Prosecutors allege that Meta intentionally attracted young users to Facebook and Instagram and designed features that encouraged addictive behavior.

Regarding age verification, Schmidt argued that privacy laws cited in the case also restrict Meta’s ability to collect, store and use the information needed to identify underage users effectively.

Meta Disputes Social Media Addiction Claims

Schmidt further argued that social media addiction has not been scientifically established. He acknowledged that Meta recognized some users could struggle to control their social media use and had developed tools intended to address those concerns.

However, he pointed to previous statements from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri, who have said that Facebook and Instagram were not designed to be addictive. Schmidt also argued that scientific research has not conclusively shown that social media addiction is possible.

California Attorney Cites Meta’s Internal Documents

Megan O’Neill, California’s lead attorney, presented a sharply different account. Her opening argument relied heavily on millions of documents produced by Meta, including internal studies, employee emails and chat messages involving senior executives.

One internal study cited during the opening statement reportedly said that teenagers had “addict stories” about their use of Instagram. Another document stated that product features designed to increase the amount of time users spend on the platform could conflict with their well-being by reducing their ability to focus on more valuable activities.

Prosecutors Say Meta Prioritized Engagement Over Safety

O’Neill argued that Meta understood the potential risks its platforms posed to young people but continued targeting children and teenagers as users. She also accused the company of reassuring the public that Facebook and Instagram were safe for children despite concerns raised in its internal research.

She described Meta’s business model as capturing users, keeping them engaged for as long as possible, collecting their data and withholding important information from the public.

O’Neill told jurors that the trial would reveal a significant gap between Meta’s public statements about user safety and the findings of its internal investigations.

“Meta said it prioritized safety over profits, but it concealed the reality that profits trumped many times when making decisions,” she said.

The trial is expected to focus on whether Meta violated laws protecting children online and whether the company knowingly designed or promoted platform features that could harm young users.

Source: www.bbc.co.uk