A federal trial opened Tuesday in Oakland, CA between Meta Platforms and four state attorneys general — from California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey — who claim that the company intentionally designed its platforms to be addicting for minors and misled guardians and regulatory bodies. Meta’s business model “was especially bad for kids,” said California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill in her opening statement. The four states are also among 29 accusing Meta of unlawfully collecting and storing information from users under 13, violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act — allegations the company denies.
It’s the latest in a string of recent trials in which individuals and states have alleged that social media harms youth mental health — an idea as old as posting itself. For instance, in March, a Los Angeles jury awarded $6 million in damages from Meta and YouTube to an individual plaintiff whose mental health had suffered from using social media as a kid. A New Mexico District Court slapped down $942 million in total penalties to Meta for harming youth mental health by violating consumer protection laws. The damages could be even bigger this time around: With the trial in Oakland, Meta could face an additional $1.4 trillion in penalties, and the states also want changes to the design of Facebook and Instagram.
To better understand how we got here, the arguments on each side of the trial and what might happen next, we interviewed Eric Goldman, Professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and Co-Director of the Datta Center for High Tech Law. He sees high stakes not just for the companies and social media users, but also for who’s in charge of regulating how Americans communicate, as the results of this case could redefine the meaning of social media interaction.
The following Q&A has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
Q: There is a wave of cases facing Meta and other social-media companies right now involving alleged harms to young users. What has changed legally or strategically that is allowing these cases to get as far as they are now?
A: Attitudes toward social media have changed significantly over the last decade. Broader negative attitudes toward technology, a “tech-lash,” or tech whiplash, have changed how jurors and judges may feel about these companies. Plaintiffs have also been building precedent, opening the door a little more with each case.
All institutions have declining reputations with the American public. Social-media services have been caught in that trend. This creates a negative downward spiral: Politicians criticize social media, which encourages continuing criticism. Very little attention is paid to the positive ways the internet has improved communities.
Q: What makes the Oakland trial materially different from the Meta trials we’ve already seen this year?
A: The New Mexico case was brought by the state attorney general and is similar in important ways to the Oakland litigation.
The Los Angeles court is hearing cases brought by individual alleged victims through bellwether trials. A small number of cases are used to help the parties estimate how other cases might turn out.
The Oakland litigation is led by 29 attorneys general, which allows the states to make arguments and seek remedies that individual plaintiffs cannot. The stakes are therefore much higher than in the individual Los Angeles trials.
Q: What do you think is the states’ strongest argument in this case, and what is Meta’s strongest defense?
A: There is a pretty damning body of evidence developed over the years suggesting Meta prioritized user engagement over other interests users might have. But looking bad does not necessarily mean Meta broke the law.
Meta will also challenge the science underlying the attorneys general’s claims, including whether social-media addiction exists in the way alleged, whether Meta caused the claimed harm and whether Meta should legally be considered at fault.
Q: Plaintiffs in a lot of these recent cases have said that alleged mental health harms come from the way Meta’s social media platforms are designed, rather than from the content itself. Why is that distinction so important legally?
A: In 1996, Congress enacted a law known as Section 230, which generally protects websites from being liable for third-party content. If a platform creates the content itself, it can be liable, but if the content comes from a third party, it generally is not. Section 230 has forced plaintiffs to change how they make their cases because some arguments are foreclosed by it.
Q: So plaintiffs are attempting to skirt that by saying the harms come from problems with neutral design like infinite scroll.
A: There is also a First Amendment issue. Decisions about how to gather, organize and disseminate content are protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that they are not suing over Meta’s editorial decisions, but I believe it is clear that they are challenging those decisions.
Q: Got it, so Section 230 and First Amendment issues are also parts of what the judge in Oakland will be looking at to decide that case.
These cases could put courts in the position of deciding how features like recommendation systems, notifications or infinite scroll should work. Are courts the right institution to make those decisions, or should that primarily be handled by legislatures and regulators?
A: The New Mexico court ordered Meta to make changes to its service, effectively making itself a decision-maker about product design.
But I do not think courts are the right institutions to make those decisions. Product changes will benefit some people and hurt others. Courts are poorly positioned to weigh those trade-offs and may solve one problem while creating another. Courts do not necessarily have the scientific expertise or ability to anticipate all of the consequences.
Legislatures are normally better positioned because legislators are elected, publicly accountable and can hear from advocates, experts, lobbyists and other affected groups.
I am also concerned about legislatures regulating speech. Governments may characterize social media as harmful in ways that serve government interests rather than the public, raising First Amendment and censorship concerns.
What is missing from many of these debates is consideration of people who benefit from social media. We’re battling over who should have power in our society. Who decides how we talk to each other? We should be wary of the government controlling how people communicate, but also wary of leaving that power entirely with capitalist corporations.
