Image adapted from Wikimedia Commons
Meta is facing one of the most significant trials in the history of social media. A group of 29 US states accuses the company behind Instagram and Facebook of developing features designed to keep children and teenagers on its platforms for longer, while allegedly downplaying the risks associated with the use of its products.
The trial began this week in Oakland, California, and is being led by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey. The states also accuse the company of collecting data from children under the age of 13 without parental consent, potentially violating US federal law.
Meta rejects the allegations. The company argues that there is no scientific consensus showing that social media causes addiction among teenagers and says it has developed a range of tools to improve the safety of younger users.
At the heart of the case is something fundamental to the social media business model: attention.
The longer a user remains on a platform, the greater the opportunity to serve advertising, collect behavioural data and increase engagement. The states allege that features used by the platforms were specifically designed to encourage this continuous use among young people.
Internal documents and testimony from former Meta employees are expected to play an important role during the trial. Arturo Béjar, a former executive at the company and one of the first witnesses, said that issues relating to teenage safety were known internally and questioned the way the company assessed those risks.
The case could also have extraordinary financial consequences. The states are seeking damages that, depending on how any potential violations are calculated, could reach extremely high levels. More importantly, however, they are seeking changes to the way Instagram and Facebook operate.
The Meta trial raises a business question that extends far beyond social media: how far can a company optimise a product to increase engagement when engagement itself begins to be questioned as a source of risk?
For years, digital companies have been evaluated using metrics such as time spent on platforms, user growth, retention and engagement. The harder a platform was to leave, the more valuable the product appeared to be.
Now, part of that logic is being challenged in court.
If the states are able to demonstrate that certain mechanisms were knowingly used to prolong the amount of time minors spent on the platforms, the debate could reshape the way digital products are developed and regulated.
And the consequences would not be limited to Meta. TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat and other platforms are facing similar scrutiny in the United States.
Perhaps this trial marks an important shift for Big Tech: growth and engagement may continue to be measures of success, but they can no longer be considered separately from responsibility for how that growth is achieved.
When user attention is a company’s most valuable product, who should define the line between engagement and addiction?
