Social media on trial: tech giants face lawsuits over addiction, safety, and mental health

Meta might be on the hook for $17.1 billion and a host of app changes under a new kids safety settlement, but it’s already spinning the deal to its advantage.

After years of being the national punching bag for social media harms, Meta has reached a settlement with 47 US states and several districts and territories that gives it a rare opportunity: A chance to flex on its rivals. “We want to ensure teens benefit from this new industry standard, but we cannot do it alone,” Meta says in an “Open Letter” that is also running as a full-page ad in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post. “These protections will only be truly effective if we work with our peers — TikTok and YouTube — to put the same measures in place.” Snap (which is also named in the agreement), TikTok, and YouTube haven’t yet made a public statement on the settlement and did not respond to requests for comment.

Meta just agreed to make sweeping changes for teens as part of a child safety settlement reached with attorneys general across the US. Under the agreement, Meta must apply new safeguards across Instagram and Facebook that will change how teens interact with the social media platforms, as well as restrict their use during certain times.

The settlement stems from a nationwide lawsuit alleging Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snap failed to protect children and made their platforms “addictive” by design. A group of 51 US states and territories signed the agreement, including New York, New Jersey, California, Nevada, South Carolina, Washington, Illinois, and many more. Most of these protections are required to remain in place for at least 10 years.

Meta settled its latest kids online safety trial with a group of 29 state attorneys general, sparing it from the remainder of a trial that could have cost it hundreds of billions of dollars.

Under the terms of the settlement, which resolves claims by a larger group of 47 states and several districts and territories, Meta agreed to come up with an age assurance standard that is subject to independent testing, and must have a false positive rate no higher than 10 percent for users aged 16 to 17, and 3 percent for users aged 13 to 15. The company also agreed to give teens the option to turn off personalized feeds, meaning that they won’t be shown content based on Meta’s recommendation algorithm, and Meta will suspend push notifications for teens between 10 PM and 7 AM unless parents disable those restrictions, as well as limit teens to two hours of Meta app usage per day (with exceptions for messaging and “longform content”).

Less than a week before Meta’s lawyers were set to return to a Los Angeles courtroom, the plaintiff accusing the platform of inflicting harm dropped the case. Brought by 15-year-old Florida plaintiff going by initials R.K.C., the case was set to be the second in a set of bellwether trials meant to test legal arguments that social media giants allegedly broke the law by creating features that hooked and harmed teens.

TikTok, Snap, and YouTube previously settled claims brought by R.K.C. for undisclosed amounts. “In light of the overall successful result of the litigation and his concerns about enduring a grueling weekslong trial, he has elected to withdraw his claims against Meta,” R.K.C.’s lawyers Emily Jeffcott and Rahul Ravipudi said in a statement. “He’s ready to close this chapter and focus on his recovery and engage in therapy as he aspires to have a normal life.” That means Meta got out of this case without having to pay a settlement. “The claims never held up, and this outcome makes clear that we will not back away from defending ourselves against baseless lawsuits,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement.

After back-to-back losses in trials grappling with its impact on teens’ mental health, Meta just settled what was supposed to be its next legal battle with Kentucky’s Breathitt County School District. Google’s YouTube, Snap, and TikTok all recently settled similar claims brought by the school district, which was seeking payment from the companies to cover the cost of combatting social media-related mental health harms.

The trial had been set to begin in June as the first bellwether trial of the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) cases, which include claims from school districts, state attorneys general, and individuals against the social media platforms. It’s similar to the group of cases making their way through a California state court in Los Angeles, where the first bellwether case in that group was recently held. The idea is that trying a sampling of cases before juries will inform settlement negotiations for the broader bucket of remaining cases.

Snap, YouTube, and TikTok have settled the first lawsuit of its kind, alleging that social media addiction has cost public schools massive amounts of money, according to Bloomberg. The suit, filed by the Breathitt County School District in Kentucky, claims that social media has disrupted learning and created a mental health crisis, straining budgets. The terms of the settlement have not been revealed yet, and Meta is still facing a trial in the same suit, which is viewed as a bellwether for over 1,000 similar lawsuits across the country

This follows an earlier case, settled by Snap and TikTok, in which a 19-year-old plaintiff claimed significant personal injury due to addictive social media apps. Google and Meta did not agree to a settlement in that suit, and it eventually went to trial, where a jury awarded the plaintiff $6 million. Meta also recently lost a suit brought by New Mexico’s attorney general to the tune of $375 million.

Still fresh off its recent $375 million jury verdict against Meta, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s office began arguing for even greater asks in the second phase of a landmark trial. On Monday, an attorney for the state, David Ackerman, pressed the court for a $3.7 billion abatement plan that would require Meta to fund programs for mental health providers, law enforcement, and educators. Other requests include changes to Meta’s services — like age verification, a 99 percent detection rate for new child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and no more late-night or school-day notifications for teens in the state.

During opening statements, the state argued that only this kind of sweeping plan could resolve the safety and public health issues Meta poses to New Mexico minors. The plan “recognizes the scope of the public nuisance that Meta has caused,” Ackerman said. Meta, on the other hand, said the AG’s asks are so far-fetched and infeasible that it could have no choice but to leave the state entirely if Judge Bryan Biedscheid forced it to comply with the plan.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez won a historic sum of $375 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.

Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Meta says it may be forced to pull Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp from New Mexico if the attorney general gets his way. The state is demanding a host of changes that the company says are impossible to achieve.

After winning a $375 million jury award against Meta in a trial that argued the company misled users in the state about the safety of its products, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez is asking the state court to order sweeping changes to the platforms. Among the asks are a prohibition on end-to-end encryption for minors, implementing age verification, and detecting 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material uploaded to its services.

The jury in a landmark trial testing claims about social media addiction against Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube determined that the two companies failed to warn users about the risks of using their products. The jury found the companies’ negligence was a substantial factor in harms like the mental health issues sustained by a now 20-year-old woman Kaley G.M., who used Instagram and YouTube.

The jury ordered both companies to pay a total of $3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta responsible for 70 percent of that balance, according to jurors’ responses shared by a firm representing plaintiffs including Kaley. Jurors found that punitive damages were warranted, and they’ll deliberate further on the appropriate amount to award. Ten jurors answered in favor of the plaintiff on each of the questions they were asked to decide, including whether Meta and YouTube were negligent and a substantial factor in the harm she experienced, according to a firm representing the plaintiff. During the trial, Kaley and her therapist testified about her struggles with body dysmorphia and compulsive use of the platforms. Two jurors favored the defense, but the verdict did not require a unanimous decision.

Meta willfully violated New Mexico law by misleading users about the safety of its products and engaging in an unconscionable trade practice, a jury found. The company will face a $375 million penalty for the violations, awarding the maximum penalty of $5,000 per violation for 37,500 violations across two counts. The jury decided against Meta on every count, though it declined to award a penalty as high as the state sought, which would have been closer to $2 billion.

It’s a landmark verdict delivered just one day after closing arguments. New Mexico argued that Meta had flouted state law by misleading consumers and facilitating child predators on its platform. The state set up decoy accounts on Facebook to lure suspected predators to profiles that appeared to belong to minors, and said they found they were flooded with requests and messages from adults. Meta vehemently denied the allegations, saying the states’ investigation was flawed and that it has been truthful about the safety of its products.

Two juries are currently deliberating a series of cases that could either usher in a legal reckoning for Meta, or maintain the status quo in an uphill battle to impose changes or penalties on tech platforms in court.

Yesterday, a New Mexico jury heard closing arguments in a trial where Meta is accused of facilitating child predators on its platforms — allegations the company vehemently denies. And as soon as today, a Los Angeles jury is tentatively expected to reach a verdict in a separate case, which concerns whether Meta and Google should be held liable for making defective products that addicted a young woman. Verdicts against the company could result in damages and civil penalties that could exceed $2 billion dollars. Perhaps more significantly, such an outcome could also invite more legal action after years of failed or stalled attempts to sue tech companies over alleged harm.

When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrived at a Los Angeles courthouse on Wednesday, he did so with a team that appeared to be wearing Meta’s camera-equipped Ray-Ban smart glasses. Judge Carolyn Kuhl was concerned. According to CNBC, Kuhl warned anyone recording with the glasses, “If you have done that, you must delete that, or you will be held in contempt of the court.” Kuhl also ordered everyone wearing AI smart glasses to remove them. Even after the warning, at least one person was seen wearing the glasses around jurors in a courthouse hallway, although plaintiff attorney Rachel Lanier was told the glasses weren’t recording at the time.

Glasses with recording capabilities have sparked concerns about privacy, surveillance, and doxxing in all kinds of places, and the courtroom is no exception. Earlier this month, a user on the r/legaladvice subreddit shared a post asking for advice on reporting a plaintiff wearing Meta’s glasses to court. Additionally, over recent months, a few states have moved to specifically ban smart glasses from courthouses, including the US District Courts for the District of Hawaii and the Western District of Wisconsin. The Forsyth County Court in North Carolina also banned smart glasses last year. Colorado’s District Court is considering a ban as well.