At the heart of a consequential case about social media liability is a key question: Did Metta lie or mislead the public about the security of its platform, while something very different?
The state of New Mexico opened its lawsuit on Monday arguing that public statements by Metta’s top executives regularly contradicted its own internal conversations and research about the harm Facebook and Instagram are doing to teenagers. According to State’s Attorney Don Migliori, Meta prioritized profits and its stated commitment to free expression over the safety of young users on Facebook and Instagram. Meanwhile, Metta’s attorney Kevin Huff told a New Mexico jury that Metta had not defrauded anyone, and that the company did indeed regularly disclose potential threats to its services. These disclosures happen, Huff said, because a company can’t always violate its terms of service. “This case is not about whether or not there is bad content on Facebook and Instagram,” Huff told the jury. While the horror may sometimes get him past the platform’s defenders, he said, “the evidence will show that Meta told the truth.”
“This issue is not about whether there is bad content on Facebook and Instagram.”
The case is one of two high-profile trials over social media liability that began Monday with opening arguments. The second is taking place in a state courtroom in Los Angeles, where lawyers for a young plaintiff initially identified by KGM are alleging that Meta and YouTube designed their products in ways that harmed the mental health of their users. The L.A. trial is the first bell in a series of lawsuits against social media companies taking place in the same courthouse, alleging similar harms to users.
The case in New Mexico, brought by state Attorney General Raul Torres, also argues that Meta designed its products in addictive ways. But the 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 must decide whether Metta misrepresented the potential harms of using Instagram or Facebook or fraudulently misled consumers. In his opening statement to jurors, Migliori repeatedly justified the slides as showing “what the meta said” and “what the meta knew.”
In detailing what Metta said, it showed statements from company executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, saying that children under 13 were not allowed on its platform, or that users over 19 were not allowed to send private messages to teen accounts that did not follow them. Then, Migliori would show slides that he said showed Metta knew the reality was different. In a 2018 email from Zuckerberg to top executives, the CEO wrote that he “felt intolerable to subordinate free expression by articulating the idea of ’safety first,'” adding, “Keeping people safe is a counterbalance and not the focal point.” “
After Migliori finished his opening statement, Huff appealed to jurors to give Metta a chance to present his case and “not be distracted by disturbing images.” Huff didn’t deny that there are some bad things on Facebook and Instagram, but said the company is clear about it, and works on ways to mitigate it. “We wish the state would partner with us rather than sue us.”
“No one is going to overdose on Facebook”
The state plans to call several former Meta employees, who will explain the company’s inadequate response to harmful behavior on its platforms — according to the state. At least two of the former employees have previously testified before Congress: former Facebook engineering director and Instagram consultant Arturo Bejar and former meta researcher Jason Satzahn. Huff specifically urged the jurors to give Metta an opportunity to question Satzahn before reaching any conclusions about his credibility. He also previewed Meta’s argument that what people colloquially call social media addiction is a misnomer. Addiction to substances like fentanyl can cause physical effects such as withdrawal. Meta would likely argue that social media does not create physical dependence. “Facebook is not like fentanyl,” Huff said. “No one is going to overdose on Facebook. Scientific studies have said that when you stop using Facebook, people don’t get withdrawal symptoms if you stop using fentanyl.” The first witness to take the stand was an assistant principal who allegedly dealt with student conduct issues related to social media use.
Even before the trial began, Metta and the AG’s office were going public. Meta spokesman Andy Stone recently published a lengthy thread on X accusing the Tories of using the case for their own political gain, and of “ethically compromising” the company’s investigation. While the Tories have accused Metta of profiteering over child protection, Stone has accused the Tories of opting “for self-inflicted political victory over child protection”. Stone wrote that Tories’ office used images of real children without consent for fake profiles created on Meta’s platforms as “bait” for child predators. The AG’s office used “aged” accounts that Stone said were “often repurposed as hacked accounts on illegal markets,” which he said “would taint any evidence” because they were real accounts with real histories that behaved in certain ways. “
In a statement in response to Stone’s thread, “Instead of making its products safer, Metta is wrongly giving its time and resources to law enforcement officials who put child predators behind bars.” “The company is drawing attention from New Mexico’s undercover investigation because even Metta’s highest-paid PR flex can’t defend why Metta’s platforms expose children to criminals. Our lawsuit alleges that Metta misled the public about the dangers of its platform, and we’re not surprised to see that we tried to make false statements at our trial. Two years.
