'Profits won.' The child safety trial against Meta kicks off in federal court

People line up outside the Oakland, California federal courthouse ahead of opening arguments in the trial that four state attorneys general are bringing against Meta Platforms, Inc. John Ruwitch/NPR hide caption

OAKLAND, Calif. - An attorney representing a consortium of states hurled sharp accusations at Meta Platforms in federal court in Oakland on Tuesday, at the start of the latest trial in a web of cases that aim to hold social media companies accountable for alleged harms to the mental health of young users.

"Meta's business model can be summed up in four simple words: 'hook' the users, 'hold' them for as long as they can, 'harvest' their data, and then 'hide' the truth from the public when making public statements," California Deputy Attorney General Megan O'Neill said in her opening statement.

Business Meta heads to court in a landmark trial about kids and social media addiction The stakes in this case are sky-high, with an initial estimate of potential penalties as high as $1.4 trillion — roughly the entire value of Meta's equity on the Nasdaq. Some legal experts compare this moment to landmark litigation against tobacco companies in the 1990s that forced them into big settlements and changed their behavior — and the public discussion about the risks of cigarettes.

Lawyers representing California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey allege that Meta designed its flagship products, Instagram and Facebook, to be addictive to minors with algorithms that "encourage compulsive use" and features like infinite scroll, photo filters and the "like" button. The states say the company knew the platforms were dangerous to kids, but misled the public about the risks.

The states also accuse Meta of violating the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, by gathering personal data about users under 13 and not getting parental consent.

Meta has denied these allegations, and the company's attorneys will make their own opening arguments next.

In a statement emailed to NPR, Meta said the states' claims are unsubstantiated, and that the company stands by its record of creating strong protections for teens, including enhanced privacy settings and a one-hour timer on Instagram to remind them to close the app.

Social media companies have previously been shielded from some legal actions thanks to both the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says they are not accountable for content posted on them by users.

But in this trial, the attorneys are taking a different tack: Instead of holding the company accountable for problematic content , it accuses them of problematic design — specifically, that Facebook and Instagram were designed to keep young users scrolling. The states argue that keeping kids on the site longer boosted Meta's revenue, but harmed kids' mental health.

O'Neill previewed the states' arguments, which rely heavily on internal Meta communications and studies that the states say contradicted many of the company's public statements.

She cited an internal email from 2016 that noted the "overall company goal" for Instagram is "teen time spent" on the platform.