Meta’s Big Reckoning Is Here

Key Highlights

• Then, earlier this month, Meta was ordered to pay more than $940 million in the state of New Mexico for being a public nuisance and causing psychological harm to children.
• It’s not just billions of dollars at stake for Meta in this case (the state AGs are seeking some $200 billion in damages).
• The lead AGs, which span four states--California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey--also say that Meta made deceptive statements about its platform that were likely to mislead consumers.
• ”Meta lead attorney Paul Schmidt then laid out the dozens of safety features that have been built into Meta’s apps over the past several years, and he said the company is committed to improving its apps.
• ” And inevitably some people will post negative content on social media apps, Schmidt said.

My colleague Paresh Dave and I each spent a day in federal court in Oakland, California, this week, monitoring the latest Meta child safety trial.

In case you missed it in the spring, Meta (along with YouTube) lost a landmark social media case in California, in which a jury found the companies liable for harming a young user with certain design features in their apps.

Then, earlier this month, Meta was ordered to pay more than $940 million in the state of New Mexico for being a public nuisance and causing psychological harm to children.

Now Meta is defending itself in a federal civil trial taking place in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs in this case are 29 state attorneys general.

They’re claiming that Meta violated a federal privacy law protecting children, known as COPPA, by improperly collecting personal information about children under 13 without parental consent.

The lead AGs, which span four states--California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey--also say that Meta made deceptive statements about its platform that were likely to mislead consumers.

Two specific Meta apps are in focus in this trial: Facebook and Instagram.

Meta maintains that it satisfied COPPA law requirements in those states, and denies that its statements about how its apps work were deceptive or misleading.

It also insists it is protected from liability by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which essentially says that platforms like Meta aren’t responsible for the content posted on their apps by users.

I was in the packed courtroom Tuesday to hear opening arguments from both sides, presided over by chief district judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

Per usual, Meta was represented by an army of well-heeled lawyers, who quite ironically kept experiencing technical difficulties with the mic.

Megan O’Neill, the deputy attorney general at the California Department of Justice, kicked off the opening statements, laying out how the state AGs believe Meta deliberately hooked kids on its apps and harvested their data.

O’Neill emphasized that throughout the trial, the jury would be shown just “how many features work both individually and together to keep people in the apps.

To draw them in and keep them in for longer.

Meta has used these features to draw kids onto the apps, and to keep them coming back.

Meta lead attorney Paul Schmidt then laid out the dozens of safety features that have been built into Meta’s apps over the past several years, and he said the company is committed to improving its apps. He also shifted some responsibility onto users, saying there’s no dispute that some kids find their way onto Meta’s apps and that some teens “struggle to manage their time.” And inevitably some people will post negative content on social media apps, Schmidt said.