Why states claim Meta designed addictive features for children

Amna Nawaz:

Meta is back in court, this time facing allegations that it knowingly designed Instagram and Facebook to keep children and teenagers hooked, even as it learned about the potential harm to their mental health.

Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are seeking changes to how Meta operates its platforms and roughly $200 billion in penalties. They're part of a larger group of 29 states that sued the tech giant over child safety and privacy. The other states will go to trial later.

The states argue Meta designed its apps to -- quote -- "hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and hide the truth from the public." A Meta spokesperson called those claims unsubstantiated, saying the company stands by its record of protecting minors on their platforms.

For more, we're joined by Bloomberg tech reporter Alexandra Levine, who's been covering this trial.

Alexandra, welcome. Thanks for joining us.

Alexandra Levine, Bloomberg:

Thanks for having me.

Amna Nawaz:

So Meta and other social media companies have faced similar allegations. They have gone to trial before. How is this trial different?

Alexandra Levine:

Yes, well, we have been hearing about alleged harms to children through social media for so many years at this point.

I think what makes this moment very different is that, in the past, a lot of the focus has been on the content posted to the platforms and how that content could be harmful. Right now, the focus is mainly on product design, so how the actual products of Instagram and Facebook have been built to, as the state attorney generals alleged, to keep children hooked and to harm them, certain design features.

And these are deep-seated business practices that are integral to both of the platforms, but I think the difference between the content posted and the product design is a key difference. The other key difference here, of course, is that, in addition to seeking monetary penalties, the state A.G.s would like to see injunctive relief measures, which would actually fundamentally change the way that the platforms operate.

Amna Nawaz:

So tell us more about those design features. I mean, when the states say that Meta literally designed its products to be addictive for minors, what kind of features are they talking about?

Alexandra Levine:

We're, of course, talking about the algorithm, but we're also talking about certain features like infinite scroll, which keep people just continuously scrolling. There are certain features that have to do with likes being displayed. There's features that have to do with push notifications that are going off at all hours of the day and the night, when children are supposed to be sleeping.

There are data collection practices. These are all part of the actual design issues that the state A.G.s are pointing out with the platforms.

Amna Nawaz:

Well, as part of their defense, in this trial, Meta said in a written statement this.

They say:

"We're proud of our record in protecting teens on our platforms and the amount of effort we have put into developing protections over the years even before these cases were ever filed and continuing to the present day."

So, Alexandra, what do we know about those protections? What do they point towards?

Alexandra Levine:

We know that there's certain default privacy protections for minors, that there are restrictions on accounts for people under the age of 18 that wouldn't exist if you sign up for a regular adult account on some of these platforms.

But one of the things that keeps coming up is that so many people under the age of 18 are signing up for platforms using fake birthdays. And what Meta has said is that age verification is really not a Meta-only problem.

This is an industry-wide problem, and therefore because they have all these other protections that they say they have worked hard to build, that they should not be penalized for an industry-wide problem that's really more about all platforms struggling to keep people who are underage off of the platforms and protecting them in that way.

Amna Nawaz:

So we know what the states are arguing here. We have seen what Meta and other social media platforms have argued. What does the research actually show when it comes to the harm that social media can cause for children?

Alexandra Levine:

It's an interesting question, because Meta has repeatedly pointed to research saying that there is no scientific link between mental health harms and social media -- mental health harms to teens in social media.

But I think, on the other side, you have advocates, you have got critics who are pointing to what they say is actually a growing body of evidence showing that being on screens all day and that being hooked via an algorithm is actually very dangerous, especially for a growing and developing mind.

So I think it sort of depends who you ask. And there's research on both sides that I think you keep hearing thrown around in a lot of these debates going back several years.

Amna Nawaz:

So, briefly, before I let you go, Alexandra, what exactly is at stake here for Meta?

Alexandra Levine:

I think that the potential price tag on this trial has captured a lot of attention. So Meta has come out to say that they could face a penalty as high as $1.4 trillion, which is a remarkable number when you look at the fact that meta's market value is $1.5 trillion.

And then we have heard from one of the lawyers for the state A.G.s that the number is actually closer to $200 billion, which, to put that in perspective, is roughly equal to meta's revenue from last year. Either way, it's an enormous number.

And I think that the -- just the financial stakes here have finally started to catch the attention of not only the public, but also Meta investors. But even beyond the potential financial penalty here, I think the prospect of Meta having to rework, rebuild, change the way that its most popular and stickiest platforms have been built to work, this is the way they have worked for many years.

And, obviously, they have evolved, they have improved, they have advanced. A.I. has changed a lot of things. But for Meta to have to go back and fundamentally change the DNA of its most popular products, I think, would potentially even be more of a threat to the company than any kind of financial award would be.

Amna Nawaz:

All right, that is Bloomberg tech reporter Alexandra Levine joining us tonight.

Alexandra, thank you so much.

Alexandra Levine:

Thanks.