Coverage spread: 2 sources — 2 international
Lean ratings via AllSides / Media Bias-Fact-Check. How this works.
Where they agree
- A federal trial opened Tuesday in Oakland, California, where states accuse Meta of designing Instagram and Facebook to be addictive to children.
- The case stems from a 2023 lawsuit filed by a coalition of 29 states, with California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey leading this trial.
- States are seeking roughly $200 billion in damages plus mandated changes to Meta’s platforms, including ending features like infinite scroll.
- Meta’s lead attorney Paul Schmidt argued there’s no clear scientific link between social media use and teen well-being, while conceding some users struggle.
Where they differ
- BBC highlights the sharp factual clash over underage users — states claiming “millions” of 11-12 year-olds versus Meta’s figure of just over 100,000.
- BBC gives more detail on Meta’s claim that “social media addiction does not exist,” quoting Zuckerberg and Mosseri statements directly.
- DW focuses more on former Meta engineer Arturo Bejar’s testimony that safety was often “an afterthought” in Facebook’s early growth push.
- DW frames the case with the “big tobacco moment” comparison prominently, while BBC’s excerpt centers more on the courtroom back-and-forth over data.
A federal trial began Tuesday in Oakland, California, where attorneys for four US states accused Meta of deliberately designing Instagram and Facebook to be addictive to children while misleading the public about the harm. Meta’s lawyers denied the claims, arguing there is no scientific consensus that social media addiction exists and that the company has worked to improve safety tools. The case is part of a broader 2023 lawsuit brought by a coalition of 29 states and could result in roughly $200 billion in damages plus court-ordered changes to Meta’s platforms.
What are the states accusing Meta of?
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are leading the trial, arguing Meta knowingly built features into Instagram and Facebook that exploit children’s developing brains — their sensitivity to social feedback, their pull toward reward-seeking behavior, and their still-forming impulse control. Deputy California Attorney General Megan O’Neill told the eight-person jury that Meta “knew a lot about kids’ brains” and pointed to an internal study titled “The young ones are the best ones,” which she said showed the company viewed children as its product. The states also allege Meta violated children’s privacy by collecting data on users under 13 without parental consent, and are demanding both financial damages and structural changes to the platforms, including scrapping “like” counts and infinite scroll.
How does Meta defend itself?
Meta attorney Paul Schmidt told jurors there is “no dispute” some users struggle with social media, but said research doesn’t show a clear link between teen social media use and well-being. He argued Meta has built tools to help users who have negative experiences and called those efforts “meaningful.” Schmidt pushed back hard on the addiction claim itself, citing past statements from CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri that the platforms weren’t designed to be addictive and that the science doesn’t support social media addiction as a real phenomenon. He also argued that privacy law itself limits Meta’s ability to verify users’ ages, since doing so would require storing more personal data than currently allowed.
Where did the two sides clash on the numbers?
One sharp dispute involved how many underage children were actually using Instagram. The states’ lawyer claimed Meta found “millions” of 11- and 12-year-olds on the platform and did little to remove them. Meta’s side countered that internal figures showed just over 100,000 such users. The two sides also sparred over an internal Meta research document showing “1 in 5 teens says Instagram makes them feel worse” — Schmidt noted the same document found 41% of teens said the app made them feel better and another 41% reported no effect at all.
Who is Arturo Bejar and why does his testimony matter?
Bejar, a former Meta engineering director, testified as an expert witness despite the company’s attempts to keep him from appearing. He told the court that in Facebook’s early years, the priority was shipping features quickly, “which meant that a lot of the time, safety or security was an afterthought.” His testimony is central to the states’ argument that safety concerns were consistently secondary to growth and engagement inside the company.
Why is this being compared to the tobacco trials?
Multiple observers have described this case as social media’s “big tobacco moment,” a reference to the 1990s tobacco litigation that exposed internal industry knowledge of cigarettes’ harms and reshaped how that industry was regulated. The comparison reflects the scale of what’s at stake: a six-week trial, a jury weighing internal company research against public statements from top executives, and a potential outcome that could force lasting changes to how two of the world’s most used platforms operate for young people.
What happens next?
The trial is expected to run roughly six weeks, with the jury hearing further testimony and evidence from both the states’ witnesses and Meta’s. The case is one piece of the larger 2023 lawsuit filed by 29 states, meaning its outcome could set a precedent for related claims elsewhere even as this particular trial focuses on the four lead states.
Sources
Featured photo: LPS.1 via Wikimedia Commons (CC0)