|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Opening arguments are set to begin Tuesday, Aug. 18, in a federal case brought by the state of California and dozens of other states alleging that Menlo Park-based technology giant Meta Inc. created social media algorithms designed to keep young users hooked at the expense of their mental health.
The plaintiffs have framed the case as a major effort to address what they say are harmful effects of addictive products designed to capture users’ attention by, among other tactics, collecting undisclosed data and training it to prolong engagement on social media apps such as Instagram.
Meta has said the claims have been misrepresented, that the up to $1.4 trillion penalty is disproportionate to the claims, and that the attorneys general haven’t offered any proof of harm.
Representatives from the nonprofit advocacy organization Parents Rise planned a press conference Tuesday outside the courthouse at 1301 Clay St. in Oakland as arguments get underway. The organization was founded by family members and supporters of people who say social media caused a loved one to commit suicide or experience mental health issues.
Attorney General Rob Bonta and 32 other attorneys general from around the nation alleged in the civil complaint in October 2023 that Meta designed its products to maximize users’ engagement and that internal communications showed the company ignored health risks to young people.
A spokesperson for Meta said the case is far narrower than Bonta and other plaintiffs have publicly claimed and that the civil complaint hinges on accusations that the company made misstatements the spokesperson said were cherry-picked from various sources.
“The State AGs may call this a landmark case, but their limited claims are unsubstantiated and their financial demands are vastly disproportionate,” a Meta spokesperson wrote in an email Monday afternoon, Aug. 17.
“The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification.”
The spokesperson said the state attorneys general were straying from legal facts to chase an “outlandish payout.”
Bonta said in a statement that Meta sought to further mine young users for money by creating algorithms that manipulated users’ dopamine levels, further pushed “Likes” and social comparison features despite alleged harms the complaint said the company was aware of, and creating “audiovisual and haptic alerts that incessantly recall young users to Meta’s Social Media Platforms while at school and during the night,” according to the federal civil complaint.
“Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to keep kids on the platforms longer and longer — to the point of physical and mental harm. Exploiting our most vulnerable residents to boost corporate profits is not only morally wrong, it’s also illegal,” Bonta said in a statement Monday.
The suit also alleges the company created “endless scroll” formats to thwart users’ efforts to self-regulate and that it knowingly pushed filters and products that created body dysmorphia among young users.
It alleges violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, known as COPPA, which requires parental consent for companies to collect certain data on users under the age of 13.
The company’s spokesperson said plaintiffs had offered no proof for that claim and that they were trying to take advantage of the challenge social media companies have in verifying users’ age.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers presiding over the case in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland.
This story was written by Thomas Hughes for Bay City News.
