Meta Faces Trial Over Allegations of Child Addiction
Meta’s Vice President of Wearables, Alex Himmel, recently discussed the launch of the new Meta smart glasses. They are priced at $299 and feature AI capabilities, developed in collaboration with Kylie Jenner, during an appearance on “The Claman Countdown.”
In legal news, a federal judge has denied a request from Mehta to dismiss crucial claims in a lawsuit filed by state attorneys general. The lawsuit argues that Facebook and Instagram were designed to be addictive for children, while also failing to disclose risks associated with their platforms.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled on Monday against Mehta’s motion for summary judgment concerning allegations of deception, tort, and violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
The judge noted that Meta had not met the law’s requirements for parental consent or notification. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the states on this matter.
Judge Rogers also highlighted that there are important factual disagreements regarding whether Meta’s social media platforms are indeed addictive. She questioned whether Meta falsely denied the claims and if the platforms were marketed, at least partially, to children. Importantly, this ruling does not resolve whether Facebook or Instagram are addictive or if they have caused any alleged harm—those questions remain for a jury to evaluate.
In response to the lawsuit, the Attorney General, Rob Bonta from California, viewed this decision as a crucial win against Meta for its role in the children’s mental health crisis.
New York’s Attorney General, Letitia James, expressed on social media that they would continue to fight for protections for children online.
The states have cited research indicating that using Facebook and Instagram can lead to various negative outcomes for children, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, and disruptions to education and daily life.
Mr. Mehta contended that there was no evidence the attorney general misrepresented social media addiction, suggesting it’s not an established mental illness. Thus, he implied that the company’s claim of not being designed to be addictive could not be proven false.
The company also defended itself against claims of violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by reaching audiences broader than just those under 13 years old.
While the court sided with Meta on several points, it acknowledged that the method used for suspending accounts of suspected minors doesn’t necessarily confirm their age. A spokesperson for Meta stated they aim to err on the side of caution but acknowledged that many flagged accounts might not belong to minors.
The judge is also dealing with similar lawsuits filed against various social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok, brought by over 2,600 individuals, school districts, and local governments alleging harmful effects on children.
A trial date has been set for the claims brought against Meta by California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, set for August 18th.
