AGs' Social Media Suits Allege Meta Puts Profit Over Kids' Mental Health

Their lawsuit alleges that Meta "has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies to entice, engage, and ultimately ensnare youth and teens," and did so in the name of profit. Meta's conduct "has profoundly altered the psychological and social realities of a generation of young Americans," it said. Our attempts to reach Meta for comment were unsuccessful.

It’s the same court where hundreds of similar cases brought by school districts and individuals vs. major social media companies Meta, Google, ByteDance and TikTok have been consolidated under U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation multidistrict litigation (MDL) (docket 3047). Gonzalez has also been assigned the AGs’ case, California et al. v. Meta Platforms et al.

Colorado AG Phil Weiser (D) noted there are motions to dismiss the Social Media MDL in Oakland and said the AGs in the California case don't believe "that this case is one that can or should be decided on a motion to dismiss." The plaintiffs in the social cases “have not spoken to whether these cases will be consolidated in what exact form,” Weiser said, noting the claims are “quite similar” and the MDL “and our action will need to be managed in tandem.”

The relief the AGs seek will be nationwide in scope, the they said. The coalition will be “critical to the resolution of whether this Northern District of California MDL is the vehicle that will ultimately drive that," said Weiser. "We’re going to have to see how this plays out, but we now, obviously, have a seat at that table.“

California AG Rob Bonta (D) said the issues in both lawsuits are national in nature and, “not surprisingly, have a national response.” An appropriate place to address the multiple concerns over social media’s role in the youth mental health crisis “is a multidistrict litigation forum,” Bonta said, saying the private plaintiffs are operating “in parallel” with the AG case. “We welcome others engaging on this national collective challenge to the health and safety of our children.”

Local governments and states can play a role, too, said Bonta. “More is more," he said. "More watchdogs on the block is better,” and more efforts “to hold Meta accountable for the illegal actions that they’ve taken that harm our children is appropriate,” he said. The MDL forum “is a place where you’re going to see a lot of action,” and the cases will “move past motions to dismiss and to the merits” where plaintiffs will “ultimately be successful,” Bonta said.

Weiser said in addition to the33state AGs signed on to the federal complaint, seven states -- Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont -- plus the District of Columbia are filing suits vs. Meta in state courts with similar claims. Weiser cited the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act’s “very clear line” that companies “are not allowed to market to" or collect data on kids under 13 "without their parents being put on notice."

The lawsuit arose "because Meta saw an untapped, valuable audience" in 11- and 12-year-olds, and chose to "deliberately market” to them, said Weiser. Meta's operatives knew "what they were doing,” while “failing to engage in appropriate, responsible behavior because they saw an opportunity for profit,” he said.

The investigation has been going on for years, said Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti (R). Meta has made Facebook and Instagram “addictive” and targeted teenagers and kids, who are more “vulnerable and susceptible” to manipulation, he said. Meta was “well aware” of the negative effect its platforms were having on kids, but rather than make changes or issue warnings, “the company doubled-down, seeking more and more engagement from kids,” he said. Instead of acknowledging a problem, Meta made “false representations about how this was a safe platform that wasn’t going to hurt kids,” while company research indicating otherwise “got buried,” he said.

Bonta cited research showing a correlation between more time on social media and youths' rising rates of depression, anxiety, sleep, attention and body image difficulties, interference with daily life, feelings of exclusion, and susceptibility to addiction. “Every additional hour young people spend on social media is associated with an increased severity in symptoms of depression,” he said. Meta "knows all of this," he said, but it has decided to “promote their products and prominence to make a profit.”

Meta knew about the harms of social media on youth but “lied about it” to users, parents and Congress, said Bonta. He cited Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress that Meta doesn’t design its products to be addictive and similar comments about Instagram from President Adam Mosseri.

Meta's public comments on the safety of its products contradict internal documents, said Bonta. “Our investigation has found instances where the company has acknowledged internally that it had misled the public with its external, public-facing comments,” he said. Instagram features “unscrupulously induced" kids' habitual use of Instagram by "exploiting known psychological vulnerabilities in developing brains,” he said. The company had internal discussions about the negative impact of the “like” button "but decided to keep it anyway,” he said, and it has used the term “addictive” to describe Instagram features internally.

Commenting on the AGs' expected motion to dismiss arguments from Meta, specifically surrounding the First Amendment, Formella said the AGs expect to prevail through the mix of cases in state and federal courts. The state court cases are consumer protection claims, “and we believe the First Amendment defense will not be successful against those claims,” he said.

On what remedies the lawsuit seeks, plaintiff AGs downplayed financial reward and focused on injunctive relief. Weiser said plaintiffs want Meta to stop misleading users about the addictive properties of its platforms and to stop marketing to young kids, whose parents may not know they’re on social media and didn’t consent to it. On timing of the litigation, Weiser noted the motions to dismiss pending in the same court in the Social Media MDL. Though he expects those to be defeated, “then the question is, when will this go to a full trial?” It’s too early for an answer, he said.

Massachusetts, with some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the country, filed its suit vs. Meta Tuesday in Suffolk County Superior Court, said AG Andrea Joy Campbell (D). Meta has “preyed on an entire generation of young people for profit,” said Campbell. Features such as notifications, intermittent rewards, autoplay and infinite scrolling override kids’ “still developing brains” and override their ability to regulate their social media use, she said. “The company knew exactly how these design decisions could and would hook young people to the point of addiction yet continued to use them,” she said. The company refused to use alternatives that would “mitigate harm” to young people, she said.

New Hampshire also filed suit vs. Meta in state court Tuesday in a liability and negligence lawsuit with consumer protection, negligence and product liability claims, said AG John Formella, citing feedback the state received from parents and kids regarding a “mental health crisis.” His office recently learned of an ad campaign Meta developed that targets kids under 13, “despite the fact that they claim not to allow kids under 13 on their platforms," Formella said. Meta has built a “profitable and expansive empire by exploiting our kids,” he said.

Nebraska AG Mike Hilgers (R) said his state, through the complaint, is looking to protect parents as well as kids. Meta misled parents about the impact of its platforms and contradicted internal documents in public comments about the safety of the platforms. Regardless of the amount of dollars spent on mental health, “it’s not enough,” he said. “We are being swamped with a deluge, downstream, from upstream impacts on people’s mental health,” he said.

The states in the AGs' lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.