The case against Meta reissues the legal battle of the 90s against the big tobacco companies
The prosecution has replicated the same scheme with which the historic agreement to limit the tobacco industry was achieved at the end of the 20th century
WashingtonThe case against Meta could become a rehash of the historic 1990s litigation that managed to put limits on big 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 so much to prove the company's responsibility for the damages suffered by minors, as commercial practices directed towards young people and the fact that the company continued despite being aware of the harmful effects of its product.
This was the solution that the states found to succeed against big tobacco companies at the end of the century. Previously, federal prosecutors had already found how the industry had managed to win more than 800 private lawsuits because all of them started from 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 that the industry had systematically followed to promote tobacco, especially among minors. One of the most notorious examples is the cartoon Joe Camel that the Camel brand presented in 1988 and which was as recognizable to children as Mickey Mouse.
Prosecutors provided internal documents showing that companies unscrupulously applied these types of strategies with the aim of creating lifelong customers and maximizing profits, despite knowing the damages that tobacco caused. Among the evidence, there is internal documentation that revealed how the harmful effects caused by cigarettes had been intentionally minimized, or even hidden, just to make more money. The revelation that the industry had prioritized its profits at the cost 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 big tobacco companies that included economic sanctions and changes in how products were marketed, particularly to children.
The construction of the case against Meta follows the same pattern: the prosecution, jointly led by Colorado, California, New Jersey, and Kentucky, emphasizes that the company was already internally aware of the damage its platforms caused to minors, but decided to ignore it.
On Tuesday, in the initial court session, California's 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 damage its product caused already allows it to circumvent part of Meta's defense argument, which claims that it has not been proven that Instagram or Facebook have caused any real harm. Proving responsibility for the damage 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. Legislators 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 is known in the United States as multidistrict litigation.
