Concerns regarding the Meta trial

In Oakland, the lawsuit against Meta is seeking damages of nearly 1,400 billion dollars, almost equivalent to the company’s market capitalisation. The allegations made by the four states bringing the case relate to specific product features: the counting of ‘likes’, notifications, algorithms designed to maximise time spent on the platform, and the collection of data on children under the age of 13 without parental consent. The documented harm is not a rhetorical invention by the prosecution. An internal study from 2019 found that one in five teenagers felt worse after using Instagram; another from 2021 quantified the amount of bullying and violent content viewed in a week; and an email between employees described the product as a drug. A judge has already ruled that Meta’s lawyers attempted to suppress some of that research. Nevertheless, the case is marred by flaws that are more substantive than procedural: first and foremost, it targets the design, not access itself. When a court rules that a product is defective, the most effective remedy is to fix it, rather than banning it for an entire age group: no one takes cars away from 18-year-olds if a manufacturer is found liable for a faulty airbag. The same applies to an algorithm that exploits a teenager’s vulnerability. You change the default settings, disable the most aggressive personalisation features, and the product remains available to those who use it responsibly.

The Californian precedent from March (three million in compensatory damages awarded to a family, plus an equal amount in punitive damages) demonstrates, together with this trial, that civil liability is already doing the job that a ban ought to do, by examining the facts on a case-by-case basis rather than legislating by approximation. Finally, a potential ban is almost self-contradictory: Meta’s defence challenges the prosecution’s estimates of the number of registered minors (100,000 according to the company, many more according to the US government), highlighting just how weak any age verification system is. Banning access requires identifying a user’s age with certainty, which means collecting more sensitive data on minors: precisely the behaviour for which Meta is currently on trial.