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

WashingtonThe case against Meta could become a rerun of the historic 1990s litigation that managed to place limits on large tobacco companies after years of failed lawsuits. The 233-page lawsuit 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 directed 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 succeed against large tobacco companies at the end of the last century. To win the legal battle, states changed strategy after the industry managed to win more than 800 private lawsuits. All of these started from addiction and the damages caused by tobacco. In the vast majority of cases, the defense emphasized individual freedom and blamed the smoker for the decisions made.

But then, states removed responsibility for damages from the discussion and pointed to the systematic practices the industry had followed to promote tobacco, especially among minors. One of the most notorious examples is the cartoon Joe Camel that the Camel brand introduced in 1988, which was as recognizable to children as Mickey Mouse.

Prosecutors presented internal documents that showed companies unscrupulously applied these types of strategies with the aim of creating lifelong customers and maximizing profits, despite knowing the damages caused by tobacco. Among the evidence were internal documents revealing how the harmful effects of cigarettes had been intentionally minimized, or even hidden, solely to make 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. By the early 1990s, decades of research had already demonstrated how tobacco caused cancer and other types of ailments.

Thanks to this legal strategy, a historic agreement was reached with the large tobacco companies that included financial penalties and changes in how products were marketed, particularly concerning children.

The construction of the case against Meta follows the same pattern: the prosecution, jointly led by the states of 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 disregard it.

On Tuesday, in the initial court session, California Deputy 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 discovered by federal prosecutors while investigating Zuckerberg's company.

Emphasizing proof that the company knew the harm its product was causing 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 has acted despite having information that, moreover, 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 jointly filed by 29 state attorneys general in what in the United States is known as multidistrict litigation.