The case against Meta reissues the legal battle of the 90s against the big tobacco companies

WashingtonThe case against Meta could become a rerun of the historic 1990s litigation that managed to place limits on big tobacco companies after years of failed lawsuits. The lawsuit of 233 pages against Mark Zuckerberg's company is based on the same legal architecture as the case against tobacco companies: the issue is not to prove the company's responsibility for the damages suffered by minors, but rather the commercial practices aimed at young people and the fact that the company continued despite being aware of the harmful effects of its product.

This was the solution that states found to be successful against the big tobacco companies at the end of the century. Previously, federal prosecutors had already verified how the industry had managed to win more than 800 private lawsuits because all of them were based on addiction and the damages generated by tobacco. To successfully counter them, in the vast majority of cases, the defense emphasized individual freedom and blamed the smoker for the decisions made.

The states decided to change the approach, leaving the responsibility for damages out of the discussion, and pointed to the practices the industry had systematically followed to promote tobacco, especially among minors. One of the most talked-about examples is the cartoon character Joe Camel, which the Camel brand introduced in 1988 and which was as recognizable to children as Mickey Mouse.

Prosecutors submitted internal documents showing that companies unscrupulously applied these types of strategies to create lifelong customers and maximize profits, despite knowing the damage that tobacco caused. Among the evidence, there was internal documentation revealing how the harmful effects caused by cigarettes had been intentionally minimized, or even hidden, solely to earn more money. The revelation that the industry had prioritized its profits at the expense of hooking children was one of the pieces of information that most mobilized public opinion and, therefore, the jury. In the early 90s, decades of research had already shown how tobacco caused cancer and other types of ailments.

Thanks to this legal strategy, a historic agreement was reached with the major tobacco companies that included economic sanctions and changes in how products were marketed, particularly with regard to children.

The construction of the case against Meta follows the same scheme: the prosecution, jointly led by Colorado, California, New Jersey, and Kentucky, emphasizes that the company was already internally aware of the harm its platforms caused to minors, but decided to ignore it.

On Tuesday, in the initial court session, California Assistant Attorney General Megan O'Neill referred to a series of internal Meta documents that stated "young people are the best," as "teenagers are hooked despite how [the platform] makes them feel. Instagram is addictive."

O'Neill has already indicated that this will be one of the main lines of argument in the trial, with testimonies and internal documents uncovered by federal prosecutors while investigating Zuckerberg's company.

Emphasizing proof that the company knew the harm its product caused already allows it to circumvent part of Meta's defense argument, which states that it has not been proven that Instagram or Facebook have caused any real harm. Proving responsibility for the harm is no longer as central, because here the main issue is to demonstrate that the company acted despite having information that, furthermore, was hidden from the public.

The other part of the lawsuit pivots on accusations against Meta for habitually collecting data from minors under 13 without their parents' consent, constituting a violation of federal and state laws. Lawmakers state in court documents that the company "refuses to abandon the use of known harmful features" and that its motives are based on profit to "maximize its financial gains."

California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are leading the prosecution, but the lawsuit was filed jointly by 29 state attorneys general in what in the United States is known as multidistrict litigation.