At the heart of the ensuing social media liability case is a key question: Did Meta lie or mislead the public about the security of its platform, when it knew otherwise?
The state of New Mexico opened its case Monday, arguing that public statements by Meta’s top executives regularly contradict its own internal discussions and research about the harms of Facebook and Instagram to teens. According to Don Migliori, the prosecutor, Meta prioritized profits and its stated commitment to free speech over the safety of young Facebook and Instagram users. Meanwhile, Meta’s lawyer, Kevin Huff, told a jury in New Mexico that Meta had not defrauded anyone and that the company had, in fact, regularly disclosed the potential risks of its services. These disclosures occur, Huff said, because the company can’t always catch violations of its terms of service immediately. “This case is not about whether there is bad content on Facebook and Instagram,” Huff told the jury. While terrible things can sometimes get past the platform’s railing, he said, “The evidence will show that Meta was telling the truth.”
“This case is not about whether there is bad content on Facebook and Instagram”
The case is one of two high-profile social media liability trials that began with opening arguments Monday. The second is taking place in a state courthouse in Los Angeles, where lawyers for the young plaintiff identified by the initials KGM claim that Meta and YouTube designed their products in a way that led to compulsive use and harmed the mental health of their users. The trial in LA is the first sign of several lawsuits against social media companies set to take place in the same courthouse accusing users of similar harms.
The case in New Mexico, brought by State Attorney Raúl Torrez, also alleges that Meta designed its products in an addictive manner. However, this case also involved an investigation into the use of decoy accounts that allegedly lured suspected child predators to Meta’s services. According to an initial statement, three suspected child predators were arrested as a result of the sting.
A jury will have to decide whether Meta made false statements or misled consumers about the potential harms of using Instagram or Facebook. In his opening statement to the jurors, Migliori repeatedly juxtaposed images that showed “what Meta said” and “what Meta knew.”
In slides detailing what Meta said, he showed statements by company executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, such as that children under 13 were not allowed on its platforms, or that users over 19 were not allowed to send private messages to unfollowed teen accounts. Then Migliori showed images that he said Meta knew the reality was different — for example, executives estimated there were 4 million accounts under the age of 13 on Instagram. In one 2018 email from Zuckerberg to top executives, the CEO wrote that he found it “unsustainable to subordinate free speech in a way that suggests communicating the idea of ’Safety First,'” adding, “Keeping people safe is a counterweight, not a focal point.”
After Migliori finished his opening statement, Huff urged jurors to give Meta a chance to make his case and not be “distracted by disturbing images.” Huff didn’t deny that there are some bad things about Facebook and Instagram, but said the company is open about it and is working on ways to mitigate it. “We wish the state would cooperate with us rather than sue us.”
“No one overdoes it on Facebook”
The state plans to subpoena several former Meta employees who the state says will describe the company’s inadequate response to harmful behavior on its platforms. At least two of the former employees have previously spoken before Congress: former Facebook CTO and Instagram consultant Arturo Bejar and former Meta researcher Jason Sattizahn. Huff specifically urged the jurors to give Meta a chance to hear from Sattizahn before reaching any conclusions about his credibility. He also demonstrated Meta’s argument that what people might colloquially call social media addiction is a misnomer. Addiction to substances such as fentanyl can cause physical effects such as withdrawal; Meta will probably argue that social media is not physically addictive. “Facebook doesn’t like fentanyl,” Huff said. “Nobody overdoses on Facebook. Scientific studies say people don’t experience withdrawal symptoms when they stop using Facebook like you would if you stopped using fentanyl.” The first witness to take the stand was the vice principal who was dealing with student behavior issues allegedly related to social media use.
Even before the trial began, Meta and the AG’s office were showing off in public. Meta spokesman Andy Stone recently posted a lengthy thread on X accusing Torrez of using the case for his own political gain and calling the company’s investigation “ethically compromised.” While Torrez accuses Met of putting profits over child safety, Stone accuses Torrez of opting “for self-promotional political victory over child safety.” Stone wrote that Torrez’s office used images of real children without consent for fake profiles they created as “bait” for child predators on the Meta platforms. The AG’s office used “old” accounts, which Stone said were “often hacked accounts sold on illegal markets,” which he said would taint any evidence “because they are real accounts with real histories that behave a certain way.”
“Instead of making their products safer, Meta spends their time and resources falsely smearing police officers who put child predators behind bars,” New Mexico Department of Justice Deputy Director of Communications Chelsea Pitvorec said in a statement in response to Stone’s thread. “The company is deflecting attention from the undercover investigation in New Mexico because even Meta’s highest-paid PR bottlers can’t defend why Meta’s platforms are exposing children to criminals. Our lawsuit alleges that Meta has misled the public about the dangers of its platforms for years, and we’re not surprised to see the company continue to make patently false statements while we file our two-year lawsuit. disputes.”