Meta asserts that it has not concealed the potential harms associated with its platforms.
Meta asserts that it has not concealed the potential harms associated with its platforms.
At the heart of a significant lawsuit regarding social media accountability lies a crucial inquiry: did Meta deceive the public regarding the safety of its platform while being aware of contrary information?
The New Mexico state authorities initiated their proceedings on Monday, contending that Meta’s executives’ public remarks frequently contradicted internal communications and research concerning the risks that Facebook and Instagram posed to adolescents. Don Migliori, the state’s attorney, claimed that Meta favored profits and its proclaimed commitment to free speech over the welfare of young users engaging with its platforms. On the other hand, Meta’s attorney Kevin Huff informed the New Mexico jury that the company had not misled anyone and that it routinely discloses possible risks associated with its services. Huff explained that these disclosures occur because the organization cannot always identify violations of its service agreements immediately. “This case is not about whether there is harmful content on Facebook and Instagram,” Huff addressed the jury. While there can be distressing material that occasionally bypasses the platform’s safeguards, he stated, “the evidence will demonstrate that Meta conveyed the truth.”
This litigation represents one of two noteworthy trials concerning social media accountability that commenced with opening statements on Monday. The other trial is occurring in a state court in Los Angeles, where lawyers for a minor referred to as K.G.M. are alleging that Meta and YouTube engineered their products in ways that foster compulsive usage, negatively impacting users’ mental health. The Los Angeles trial serves as a bellwether for multiple legal actions against social media firms being addressed in the same court, citing comparable user-related harms.
The New Mexico case, initiated by Attorney General Raúl Torrez, further alleges that Meta designed its products in ways that foster addiction. Moreover, this case has involved an investigation that utilized fake accounts to attract potential child predators using Meta’s platforms. The opening statement indicated that three suspected child predators were apprehended as a result of that operation.
The jury will determine if Meta made inaccurate statements or misled users regarding the potential dangers of using Instagram or Facebook. During his opening remarks to the jurors, Migliori consistently compared slides depicting “what Meta stated” with “what Meta acknowledged.”
In the slides outlining what Meta stated, he showcased quotes from company leaders, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, asserting that children under 13 were prohibited from accessing its platforms and that adults over 19 were not permitted to message teenage accounts unless they followed them. Subsequently, Migliori presented slides that purportedly illustrated that Meta was aware of a different situation — for example, executives estimated that 4 million accounts were held by users under 13 on Instagram. In one 2018 communication from Zuckerberg to senior executives, he indicated that he deemed it “unacceptable to prioritize free speech in the manner that communicating the notion of ‘Safety First’ implies” and added, “Ensuring safety is a balance rather than the primary focus.”
Following Migliori’s conclusion of his opening statement, Huff encouraged the jurors to allow Meta the opportunity to present its defense, advising them not to be “distracted by alarming visuals.” Huff acknowledged the existence of unsavory content on Facebook and Instagram but asserted that the company is transparent about it and actively seeks to mitigate such issues. “We wish the state would collaborate with us instead of litigating against us.”
The state intends to call forth several former Meta team members who, according to the prosecution, will recount the company’s insufficient response to harmful activities on its platforms. At least two of these ex-employees have previously provided testimony before Congress: former Facebook engineering lead and Instagram consultant Arturo Bejar and former Meta analyst Jason Sattizahn. Huff specifically implored the jurors to allow Meta to interrogate Sattizahn prior to forming any judgments about his reliability. He also hinted at Meta’s argument that what is commonly referred to as social media addiction is indeed mischaracterized. Addictions to drugs like fentanyl can produce physical symptoms like withdrawal; presumably, Meta will argue social media does not induce physical dependency. “Facebook is not comparable to fentanyl,” Huff remarked. “No one will overdose from Facebook. Scientific research indicates that individuals do not experience withdrawal symptoms when they cease using Facebook, in contrast to what would occur with fentanyl.” The first witness to take the stand was an assistant principal who managed behavior-driven issues among students supposedly connected to social media utilization.
Even prior to the trial’s commencement, Meta and the Attorney General’s office were engaged in public disputes. Recently, Meta spokesperson Andy Stone shared an extensive thread on X accusing Torrez of leveraging the case for his political ends and labeled the investigation into the firm as “ethically compromised.” In response to Torrez’s claims that Meta prioritized profits over child safety, Stone retorted that Torrez chose “self-promotional political gain over child safety.” Stone stated that the AG’s office employed images of real children without permission for the fake profiles established as “bait” for child predators on Meta’s platforms. The AG’s office used “aged” accounts, which Stone asserted are “often compromised accounts resold on illicit markets,” leading to concerns that such evidence might be “tainted” due to those accounts holding actual histories and exhibiting specific behaviors.
“Rather than enhancing the safety of its products, Meta allocates its time and resources to untruthfully disparaging law enforcement officials who secure convictions against child predators,” remarked Chelsea Pitvorec, the Deputy Communications Director at the New Mexico Department of Justice, in a statement responding to Stone’s thread. “The company is diverting focus from New Mexico’s undercover probe because not even Meta’s highest-paid PR representatives can justify why Meta’s platforms leave children vulnerable to criminals. Our lawsuit claims that Meta has misrepresented the threats posed by its platforms for years, and we are unsurprised to observe the company persist in making overtly inaccurate statements during the ongoing trial. We anticipate presenting the jury with the evidence we have gathered over more than two years of litigation.”
