29州起诉Meta，索赔2000亿美元指控产品成瘾设计

Meta is back on trial in what could be the most consequential moment in social media history. After losing trials this year in both Los Angeles and New Mexico centered on child safety, youth mental health and deceptive product design, the tech giant is now facing a federal lawsuit filed by 29 state attorneys general in federal court in Oakland, California. This is a bellwether case that could entirely reshape its business practices and could have implications across the social media landscape.

This case centers on allegations that Meta knowingly designed its products to keep children addicted, and then misled the public about the risks. The courtroom doors are open, and it is time that the public see what the executives at Meta have known all along, that their products are designed to addict and harm children. We got a third of the planet on their products. They broke our brains, all of them. It's not just about kids.

And so at the end of the day, I think there should be some sort of reckoning. Meta says it has implemented safety features for minors and is being singled out for industry wide challenges, such as age verification. If the trial doesn't go Meta's way, the financial implications could be massive. The states have said they're seeking around $200 billion for consumer protection violations, and the judge's ruling is expected to set the tone for other pending cases around the country.

The outcome of this trial specifically has huge implications for the potential liability and resulting consequences that Meta could expect to see in other related suits in courts around the country. The trial, which started with opening arguments on Tuesday, August 18th, is expected to last 5 to 7 weeks. Outside the courthouse, victims families gathered. Meta and others have built empires on exploitation, and they hide behind outdated laws, while families like mine live with the heart wrenching consequences.

Big Tech must be held accountable like any other company that knowingly harms a child. The states involved are asking for Meta to pay civil penalties and are also demanding Meta change some key features, like infinite scroll and autoplay videos. Meta's conduct is deceptive, it is dangerous. And as we make clear in our lawsuit and as most important in a court of law, it is illegal. The company had a legal, not to mention a moral obligation, to consider the safety of young users when designing their products.

During opening arguments, the state's legal team accused the company of prioritizing profits over safety, saying its financial success depends on keeping kids on its app and that it knowingly developed features to take advantage of them. And inside of this is a lot of data that the platforms have that suggests bad things are happening all the time, and I think it is a real problem that they have kicked that that can to everyone else they can.

I have children, I see how they interact with these devices, in particular phones. And I think, boy, we need an environment that allows for vastly more control. Beyond Meta, this trial could have massive ramifications for the broader social media ecosystem and companies such as YouTube, Snap and TikTok. This trial is part of a shift away from concern about the content shared, to a focus on the design of the products, the algorithms and the company's engagement tactics.

Any time that a court gets into the business of deciding what product features are available to users and how they're supposed to operate, it poses a poses significant risks to the social media service that the product configuration will not be attractive to its users, will disengage them and as a result, put them in peril as well. If the states prevail, social media companies could face a new legal reality and be forced to implement tougher age verification practices and restrictions on design features such as infinite scroll.

Any changes that limit user engagement on its apps could have a long tail impact on its lucrative ads business, and could force the company to rethink how it's going to keep growing its revenue. The states have very strong momentum, and we can expect them to put on very strong evidence that Metas actions are legally significant enough to impose liability here. Meta is defending itself by pointing to the state AGs lack of evidence, saying in its opening statements Tuesday that many of the memos and reports the states used to paint them as rapacious were actually evidence of Metas efforts to protect its youngest users.

Meta declined an interview for this story, but in a statement said the AG's offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification. This is the most impactful lawsuit around youth safety that Meta has faced yet, and this isn't the end of the road.

If Meta loses, that could push it to settle the thousands of other lawsuits across the country. Plus, it'll likely appeal and could take this all the way to the Supreme Court. In order for social media to remain operational as it's currently working today, the social media defendants have to run the table. They have to win all of the lawsuits. And that strikes me as an extremely difficult challenge. We are only at the beginning of plaintiffs looking at all the ways that state law, in particular, has long protected kids and teenagers when they are out and about or in private spaces, and lifting and shifting or importing the relevant parts of that to the digital world.

All of this comes as Meta faces legislation across Europe and Australia banning access to social media for teens under 16, which is a challenge to enforce. Plus, Mark Zuckerberg is working hard to build Meta's AI business, both for consumers and for the enterprise, and to make Meta a real player in that competitive space. These legal challenges could pose a distraction, as he works to pivot the company to focus on artificial intelligence.