GoKawiilIn her opening arguments Megan O'Neill, a lead attorney for California, relied heavily on information found in millions of documents provided in the case from Meta. They included internal research, employee emails, and chat logs that went all the way up to Zuckerberg.
One piece of internal research on Instagram stated: "Teens have an addict's narrative about use."
In another that O'Neill pointed the jury to, Meta found "product features designed to increase time spent are inherently at odds with well-being and take away from people's ability to focus on activity that adds value to their lives".
Despite Meta's awareness of potentially negative impacts, O'Neill argued that Meta targeted young people as users of Facebook and Instagram. Meta, she said, went out of its way to "assure the public that its platforms were safe for kids".
O'Neill outlined to the jury how Meta's business model could be summed up. "Hook the users; hold them for as long as they can; harvest their data; hide the truth from the public when making public statements," she said.
She said that throughout the trial it would become clear that what Meta said publicly about its platforms and what its internal research showed were very different.
"Meta said it put safety over profits, but hid the reality that, time and again, when it came to make a decision, profits won."
Paul Schmidt, a lead attorney for Meta, directly addressed the internal research report O'Neill used in her opening arguments.
The Meta document O'Neill showed the jury found that "1 in 5 teens says Instagram makes them feel worse".
Schmidt said: "That sounds pretty bad."
... continue reading