At the heart of the resulting social media liability case is a key question: Did Meta lie or mislead the public about the security of its platform while knowing otherwise?
The state of New Mexico opened its case on Monday arguing that public statements from top Meta officials routinely contradict its own internal discussions and research about the harms Facebook and Instagram pose to teens. According to Don Migliori, an attorney for the state, Meta prioritized its stated commitment to profits and free expression over the safety of young users on Facebook and Instagram. Meanwhile, Meta attorney Kevin Huff told the New Mexico jury that Meta did not deceive anyone, and that the company in fact routinely discloses potential risks on its services. These disclosures happen because the company can’t always spot violations of its terms of service immediately, Huff said. “This case is not about whether or not there is bad content on Facebook and Instagram,” Huff told the jury. Although terrible things can sometimes cross the platform’s guardrails, he said, “the evidence will show that Meta told the truth.”
“This case 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 with opening arguments on Monday. The second is taking place in a state court in Los Angeles, where lawyers for a young plaintiff, identified by the initials KGM, are alleging that Meta and YouTube designed their products in a way that leads to compulsive use, which harms the mental health of their users. The LA trial is the first of several lawsuits to be held in the same court against social media companies accused of causing similar harms to users.
The case brought by state Attorney General Raul Torrez in New Mexico also argues that Meta designed its products in addictive ways. But the case additionally involved an investigation into the use of fake accounts that allegedly lured suspected child predators onto Meta’s services. That sting resulted in the arrest of three suspected child predators, according to an initial statement.
The jury must decide whether Meta made false statements or deceived consumers about the potential harms of using Instagram or Facebook. In his opening statement to jurors, Migliori repeatedly linked slides to each other, showing “what Meta said” and “what Meta knew.”
In slides detailing what Meta said, they showed statements from company executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, saying that children under the age of 13 are not allowed on its platform, or users over the age of 19 are not allowed to send private messages to teen accounts that do not follow them. Then, Mgliori displayed slides in which he said Meta knew the reality was different – for example, officials estimated there were 4 million accounts under the age of 13 on Instagram. In a 2018 email sent by Zuckerberg to top executives, the CEO wrote that he found it “untenable to subordinate free expression in a way to communicate the idea of ’security first’,” adding, “Keeping people safe is a counterbalance and not the main point.”
After Migliori finished his opening statement, Huff urged jurors to give Meta a chance to present his case and “not be distracted by the disturbing images.” Huff didn’t deny that there are some bad things on Facebook and Instagram, but he said the company has been upfront about it and is working on ways to mitigate it. “We want the state to partner with us instead of suing us.”
“No one is going to extremes on Facebook.”
The state plans to subpoena several former Meta employees, who – according to the state – will describe the company’s inadequate response to harmful behavior on its platforms. 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 Setizan. Huff specifically urged jurors to give Meta the opportunity to interrogate Satizzan before reaching any conclusions about his credibility. He also previewed Meta’s argument that what people colloquially call social media addiction is misnamed. Addiction to substances such as fentanyl can cause physical effects such as withdrawal; Presumably Meta would argue that social media does not create physical dependence. “Facebook is not like fentanyl,” Huff said. “Nobody should overuse Facebook. Scientific studies show that when people stop using Facebook they don’t have withdrawal symptoms like they do if you stop using fentanyl.” The first witness to take the stand was an assistant principal who reportedly dealt with students’ behavioral issues related to social media use.
Even before the trial began, META and the AG’s office were feuding publicly. Meta spokesperson 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 Torez accused Meta of putting profits over child safety, Stone accused Torez of choosing “self-promoting political victories over child safety.” Stone wrote that Torrez’s office used images of real children without consent to create fake profiles as “bait” for child predators on Meta’s platforms. The AG’s office used “old” accounts, which Stone said “often hacked accounts are resold in illicit markets,” adding that this would spoil any evidence “because these are real accounts with real histories that behaved in particular ways.”
“Instead of making their products safer, Meta is spending its time and resources unfairly demonizing law enforcement officers who put child predators behind bars,” Chelsea Pitvorek, deputy communications director for the New Mexico Department of Justice, said in a statement responding to Stone’s thread. “The company is diverting attention from New Mexico’s secret investigation because even Meta’s highest-paid PR flacks can’t defend why Meta’s platforms expose children to criminals. Our lawsuit alleges that Meta has misled the public about the dangers of its platform for years, and we are not surprised to see the company continue to make false statements while our lawsuit is pending. We have been in litigation for more than two years. “Look forward to presenting the jury with the evidence obtained.”
<a href