Inside The First Week Of Meta’s Social Media Addiction Trial

Meta Faces Claims It Put Engagement Over Safety

The major federal trial against Meta got underway this week, putting the company’s treatment and protection of its adolescent users under scrutiny. The case pits Meta against California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, four of the 29 states that sued the company in 2023. The remaining states are expected to go to trial separately.

At the center of the case is the allegation that Meta deliberately designed its platforms to keep young people engaged while downplaying or concealing the risks to their mental health and well-being.

The states accuse Meta of contributing to a youth mental health crisis by using potentially addictive features, like autoplay and infinite scrolling, and misleading the public about their effects. They also allege that Meta collected data from children under 13 without parental consent.

Meta rejects those claims and says it has invested substantially in features that protect its young users.

State And Meta Clash In Opening Statements

In their opening statement, the states began with a stark description of Meta’s business model. California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill told jurors it could be reduced to four words: hook, hold, harvest, and hide, alleging that Meta sought to:

• Hook users
• Hold their attention
• Harvest their data
• Hide the truth about any harms

They also alleged Meta had a financial incentive to keep young users engaged. Since the company makes much of its profit through advertising, more time spent on its platforms creates more opportunities to show ads and collect data. The states further accuse Meta of violating the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting personal information from users under 13 without obtaining parental consent.

The states’ case relies heavily on internal company communications, including a 2016 email that described Instagram’s overall company goal as increasing “teen times spent” on the platform. O’Neill also pointed to an internal study titled “Long Term Retention: The Young Ones Are The Best Ones,” which examined use among tweens (ages 10-12).

According to O’Neill, the research suggested that the earlier someone began using Meta’s platforms, the more likely they were to remain a user and generate revenue over time. She argued that such findings conflicted with public statements from Meta that downplayed the platforms’ addictive qualities and emphasized the company’s commitment to safety. “Meta said it prioritized safety over profits, but it hid the reality that when it came time to make a decision, time and again profits won,” she told jurors.

In his opening remarks, Meta attorney Paul Schmidt offered jurors a different interpretation.

Schmidt argued that the company was sensitive to the risks to teens, sought to address them, and did not deceive the public about them. He continued by saying that the states have cherry-picked company research, statements, and data without the context needed to understand them.

Schmidt suggested that the true dispute is about whether Meta could have handled safety differently rather than whether it cared about safety at all. As one example, he told jurors that between 2020 and 2024, Meta disabled nearly 1.5 million accounts believed to be used by children under 13.

Meta’s defense is expected to emphasize measures like these to argue that the company did take youth safety seriously, even if its efforts did not eliminate every problem.

Whistleblower Arturo Béjar Takes Center Stage

One of the states’ most important witnesses during the first week was Arturo Béjar, a former Facebook engineering director who worked at the company from 2009 to 2015 and later returned as a consultant for Instagram’s well-being team.

Béjar described a company culture driven by engagement metrics, noting that safety often became an afterthought. He said that features such as autoplay, likes, and infinite scrolling were inherently unsafe for teenagers.

He also criticized some of Meta’s responses to known risks. He argued that safety features such as “Take a Break” were set to fail by making them optional rather than default settings. He also said any internal ideas for stronger safeguards were continually weakened as they moved up through the company.

However, Meta’s cross-examination brought additional context to Béjar’s account. Béjar acknowledged that he worked alongside qualified people he respected and that none of the safety risks he addressed had been fully resolved, underscoring Meta’s argument that protecting young people online involves difficult enforcement problems rather than simple fixes the company deliberately refused to make.

What Comes Next?

The trial is expected to last for roughly 6 weeks. The states will continue to try to establish that Meta knew its products posed risks and failed to respond adequately, while Meta will have an opportunity to present evidence about its safety measures, product changes, and internal efforts to understand teen social media use. The stakes go beyond potential financial penalties, as the states are also seeking changes to how Facebook and Instagram operate.

One of the most anticipated moments could come when Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg takes the stand, although the attorneys general said on Tuesday that they had not yet decided whether to call him as a witness. If Zuckerberg does testify, he will do so with other current and former company executives, giving jurors a look at how Meta’s top leadership viewed issues surrounding engagement and child safety.

With several weeks of testimony still ahead, the social media addiction trial is expected to further examine what Meta knew about the risks its platforms posed to young users, how the company responded, and whether those efforts were sufficient.