Meta is facing one of the most consequential legal trials in its history in the United States. A group of 29 states accuses the tech giant of designing its social networks with mechanisms that foster addiction among young people, concealing the risks to their mental health, and collecting data from children under 13 without their consent. The trial, which began a few days ago in Oakland, California, puts both the company and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, in the spotlight.
Statements already made by former Engineering executive Arturo Brute have raised serious concerns. According to this former manager, child safety was relegated to a secondary priority compared to growth targets and increased usage time. This case could not only lead to enormous financial compensation but also a profound reconfiguration of Facebook and Instagram to significantly reduce the risks children face. The prosecution believes Meta acted deliberately and systematically, while the company maintains that its track record demonstrates a genuine commitment.
A trial focusing on Meta's design and priorities
The lawsuit filed in 2023 by a bipartisan group of attorneys general from 29 states alleges that Meta has violated child protection laws. The case in federal court in Oakland is being led by California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, the four states that initiated the trial while the other plaintiffs await their turn. According to the documents, the company is not only responsible for harmful content but also for the very features that capture teenagers' attention, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, and "like" counters.
The prosecution alleges that Meta always prioritized engagement and profits, even if it meant ignoring internal investigations that already pointed to risks to children's well-being. The plaintiffs' goal is for the company to modify the design to make the platforms less addictive and to prohibit the collection of data from children under 13 without parental consent. Furthermore, an adverse ruling could result in damages of up to $200.000 billion, according to initial projections.
The state representatives have presented a strong strategy, focused on civil liability and changes to internal policies. So much so that the accusations are not limited to executives, but also target the company's internal culture, which may have prioritized profit over any ethical considerations regarding children. Meta's defense, for its part, has denied all the accusations and maintains that the security measures they have already implemented are sufficient to protect the most vulnerable users.
Arturo Brute's harrowing testimony: "Zuckerberg knew"
One of the most tense moments of the trial came with the testimony of Arturo Brute, former Head of Engineering at Meta. Brute worked at the company from 2009 to 2015 and returned as a contractor between 2019 and 2021. During both periods, he was responsible for analyzing the well-being of teenagers and held approximately 100 meetings with Mark Zuckerberg himself. In court, Brute recalled how in 2021 he emailed the founder to alert him to the continuous reports of harmful content on Instagram. The executive wanted real change, but never received a response.
“If Mark makes something a priority, mountains can be moved in months,” the former executive declared, but in this case, his request fell on deaf ears. While waiting, Béjar recounted how his own teenage daughter suffered harassment and was subjected to explicit images on Instagram, and when she tried to report it, she encountered futile procedures. Furthermore, he presented data from his own surveys: 51% of the teenagers interviewed had experienced a negative situation on Instagram in the past week, and only 0,02% of reported content was removed. These percentages have been reported by several media outlets, demonstrating the weight of his testimony.
The former executive also discussed Meta's general attitude toward users under 13. Although the terms of service prohibited their registration, the company's "don't ask, don't tell" policy was common practice; that is, they didn't actively verify age or establish mechanisms to systematically detect these minors. Bjar emphasized that the company was capable of identifying millions of suspicious accounts, but lacked the internal incentive to act because removing users would mean losing advertising revenue.
The controversy over monitoring tools and Meta's responsibility
During the trial, the various well-being tools that Meta has added to protect young users have been called into question. For example, the "Take a Break" feature is a reminder for teenagers to take breaks from using Instagram. Brute called it "designed to fail" because it isn't enabled by default and can be dismissed with a single tap. Furthermore, parental control mechanisms exist, but they too have been deemed insufficient or unintuitive by critics.
Meta's lawyer, Paul Schmidt, defended the company's track record and highlighted the measures already implemented, such as the teen accounts launched in 2024 and the content reporting systems. Schmidt asserted that the states' accusations are based on documents taken from broader contexts and that the company takes its responsibility seriously. However, reports from independent organizations, such as Fairplay and Béjar's own report, indicate that most of these tools are either inaccessible or do not function as advertised.
The company insists that the minimum age of 13 is protected and that they have deactivated more than a million accounts belonging to minors, but the states' defense maintains that the problem lies in the very design of the platforms, which encourages users to spend increasingly more time on the app. The trial will continue for several more weeks, with the expected appearances of Zuckerberg and Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri, as well as former employees and affected individuals.
Ultimately, the case exposes a reality that many have been denouncing for years: social media has a profound impact on the mental health of young people, and according to this lawsuit, Meta has not lived up to the expectations of a service provider for minors. The coming days will be crucial in determining whether the tech giant will face one of the harshest penalties in its history and whether it will be forced to completely transform the way it designs its applications. If the final ruling is unfavorable, the consequences will not be merely financial: they would imply a paradigm shift in the social media industry and greater protection for younger generations.