29 US states are suing Meta. What does it mean for the rest of the world?
A trial began in the United States this week that could dramatically change how Facebook and Instagram operate around the globe.
The trial, held in Oakland, is expected to last six weeks and pits 29 US states against Meta, the owner of both social media platforms. Four states – California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey – are leading the jury trial on behalf of the rest.
The 233-page complaint, filed in 2023, makes four main claims. Together they paint a damning picture of Meta deliberately designing and monetising Instagram and Facebook to exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of children and teenagers. One of the states' key witnesses is Arturo Béjar, a former Meta safety engineer and whistleblower.
Meta strongly denies the central allegations in the case. In his opening statement, the company's lead lawyer, Paul Schmidt, said:
There is no doubt that Meta has recognised that people can struggle with their use of social media and has sought to develop tools to help them.
If Meta loses – as it did in recent similar cases in California and New Mexico – it could face penalties worth hundreds of billions of dollars. It could also be forced to redesign Facebook and Instagram, and that wouldn't affect only US users.
The four main claims
The first claim against Meta concerns exploitative and addictive product design. The states allege Meta engineered core features of Facebook and Instagram to trigger compulsive engagement and intermittent dopamine loops, similar to what happens when playing a poker (slot) machine.
The features at issue include algorithms that drive infinite scrolling, autoplay, constant push notifications, image filters that can trigger body dysmorphia, and vanity metrics known as "likes".
According to internal documents cited in the suit, Meta studied adolescent brain development – including factors such as lower impulse control and heightened reward sensitivity – and tuned its products to maximise the time users spend on the platforms.
The states' second claim is that Meta concealed internal research findings linking Instagram use to increased depression, anxiety, body image issues and self-harm among teenagers. The states argue that Meta publicly claimed its platforms were safe while internally knowing that users were being hooked against their own wellbeing, and that it actively deceived parents, educators and young users.
The third claim in the case concerns systematic violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Collectively, the states allege Meta broke the law by collecting the personal data of children under 13 without verifiable parental consent.
The final area involves violations of state consumer protection laws. The states allege dozens of parallel counts under their individual fair trade and anti-fraud statutes.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the other state lawyers told the presiding judge that, by Meta's account, the potential damages in the case could reach US$1.4 trillion, though they said a more realistic and reasonable figure would be around US$200 billion.
That figure is close to the US$206 billion settlement reached in 1998 between the attorneys general of 52 US states and territories and the four largest US tobacco companies.
A possible redesign
Beyond financial penalties, the states are also seeking court-ordered product redesigns.
At the heart of the case's implications is the question of whether Meta's business model has produced harmful products. The business model itself is simple: selling advertising. But that requires engagement with content on the platforms.
In her opening statement, California Deputy Attorney General Megan O'Neill said this engagement is driven by four core behaviours: to "hook" users, to "hold" them for as long as possible, to "harvest" their data, and to "hide" the truth about the dangers.
The states argue that the only way to break this "hook, hold, harvest, hide" pattern is to redesign Meta's platforms – for example, by removing infinite scrolling for young users and correcting deceptive safety representations.
If the jury sides with the states, a court order over the redesign of Meta's platforms could have global effects.
For Meta, maintaining a separate, safer product exclusively for US users would be technically and economically impractical. And if it continued to offer the existing designs of Facebook and Instagram to users outside the US, it could expose itself to lawsuits in other jurisdictions.
A different solution
There is another way to address the harms social media platforms are alleged to cause. Rather than continuing a game of whack-a-mole, creating ad hoc laws and regulations to respond to ever-changing harms, countries could impose a "digital duty of care".
This is a proactive safety standard. It would require social media platforms to design safe products from the outset.
Some countries, including Australia, have already committed to working towards this approach.
Other countries will be watching closely to see how a digital duty of care works in Australia, just as they will be watching how the next six weeks play out in Oakland.