When Profit Dictates Safety: The Meta Lawsuit and the Grave Revelations Against The Big-Tech Giants

The lawsuit against Meta, filed by 42 states, points to a shift in digital transparency and accountability for big corporations and tech companies. As the misuse of social media platforms and their effects on mental health and behaviour of individuals comes to light, the lawsuit highlights the systematic misuse of resources and information by Meta to best suit their agenda. 

Illustration by The Geostrata

The US Court Filings allege that Meta had purposefully hidden internal research that exposed the social media's adverse effects on its users. The lawsuit, while bringing the harmful effects of social media to the spotlight, is ultimately about companies disregarding public interest for their personal gains. Should big tech companies be allowed to expand their influence at the cost of individual safety and dignity?

THE US COURT FILINGS

The lawsuit filed by 43 US states, signed by 33 attorneys general, focuses on claims that Meta platforms were allegedly causing long-term harm to children’s mental health, and are purposefully created to keep children engaged. The lawsuits primarily focus on the violation of children’s online safety protection as well as the consumer protection law by Meta, with the sole motive to increase their own profit.

Meta now faces serious allegations, including allegations of indirectly encouraging those below the age of 13 to use their platforms, potentially compromising child safety with failure to address the child sexual content on its platforms.  

The internal documents further expand upon how Meta intentionally designed its platforms and algorithms to keep the teenagers hooked, while being aware of the increased mental health problems due to such mechanisms.

Meta conducted an internal research under Project Mercury, and the internal findings showed that the individuals who went off social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram had recorded reduced loneliness and depression amongst individuals. 

These key findings were never made public, and Meta themselves shut down the internal research, terming it as ‘flawed methodology’. The multi-state action today follows an investigation from November 2021, where a whistleblower claimed that Instagram was aware of the negative effects of the platform on the eating habits of teenage girls.  

The lawsuit further sheds light on how Meta went against the COPPA Act, passed in 1998, with the sole motive to obtain parental consent before collecting data from children aged under 13. 

However, according to the lawsuit, Meta was aware that children under the age of 13 had gained access to the platforms, but willingly chose not to obtain parental consent before obtaining children’s data, demonstrating the lack of enforcement and lapse by the big tech platforms, which highlighted their limitations; however, the pattern highlighted how the warning signs were overlooked, exposing the systematic failure and inadequate response towards regulatory neglect. 

THE LARGER GAME AT PLAY

The Meta lawsuit today is no longer an isolated incident but shows the larger picture, throwing light on the inefficiencies that continue to haunt the US regulatory system set in place. The big tech power today goes beyond the regulatory constraint and gives primacy to profit over human dignity. Meta’s advertising model is recognised as the root cause, compelling the companies to collect personal data on users and strategising the data to produce targeted ads.

In 2024, going against its own policies, Meta continued advertisements targeting the sale of illicit substances and drugs, generating massive revenue through such advertisements while potentially affecting users, especially children, in the long run. 

The algorithm that decides what an individual consumes further adds to these risks through frequently amplifying hateful, discriminatory and harmful content. In Myanmar, UN experts found that Facebook played a pivotal role in dehumanising Rohingya muslims, which then led to fuelled ethnic tensions and violence.  

The creation of echochambers, used to push an agenda, has been linked to increased violence and polarisation. Alongside this, the spread of fake news, misinformation and scams has seen a massive rise. 

Meta is expected to generate 10% of its 2024 revenue through scams and banned goods. While the big tech giants have focused heavily on growth and revenue, human rights and corporate accountability have been pushed aside.

THE GLOBAL RAMIFICATIONS

With nations actively shifting towards digital sovereignty, Australia’s historic decision to ban social media for children below the age of 16 plays a critical role in where the power shifts and the big-tech companies with unrestrained powers are made to bear the brunt of the law. The growing concerns of deteriorating mental health and increased body dysmorphia grabbed the local headlines. The shocking case of a 15-year-old Tilly Roseworn due to cyberbullying further intensified such moves.

Australia’s landmark decision will have ramifications well beyond the region, as nations across the globe ponder the need to rein in the unabated powers of the big tech giants and their complacency in the enforcement of child protection laws.

The United Kingdom, passing the Online Safety Act in 2023, has placed a range of new social media duties on big tech platforms to ensure child protection on these platforms. The companies are required to use highly active age assurance technology to ensure that the minors are prevented from accessing inappropriate content, including pornography, self-harm, or eating disorders. The law further strengthens the government to impose 10% fines on its worldwide revenue when companies fail to comply with the nation’s laws.

India, too, understanding the global ramifications and stressing the need for digital sovereignty, recognised the ongoing Meta lawsuit as crucial to ensure user data is protected. In 2024, the Competition Commission of India recognised that zero-price digital markets such as WhatsApp use user data and privacy to gain competitive dominance.

India’s intervention asserts that market dominance cannot abuse user data, especially when users are given no real choice over their privacy. India is now effectively reasserting that digital markets are not lawless spaces, where data could be tampered with, and sovereignty goes well beyond the borders, including the right to protect the user's privacy from platforms eyeing an opportunity to exploit users for market gains. 

These developments mark a critical juncture where the decision of big tech giants to comply with the norms will inevitably shape the next phase of power dynamics and internet governance globally. 

WHAT LIES AHEAD

Experts argue that litigation could not be the means to limit the growing powers of the big tech companies, but rather calls for a strategic path focusing on regulation, addressing the harm and reinforcing the ethical principles. 

The law must catch up to the grave threats posed by the growing surge of artificial intelligence and its introduction to social media platforms, leading to pervasive data collection and infringing on an individual's right to liberty. 

The state lawsuits must force Meta to change its design patterns and algorithms while also putting limitations on young exposure to the content and use of social media platforms. At a centralised level, the state must set up new accountability institutions that reassert the need for civic trust and establish systematic pressure testing systems that persistently ensure transparency. 

The system should further focus on flagging whenever any social media platform is misusing the data or manipulating preferences, to ensure increased accountability of social media platforms and their blatant misuse to control the information echo chambers must be challenged through the restriction of Application Programming Interface Access, and shutting down tools that clamour down on independent research. 

Under the EU’s Digital Services Act, more than 75% of the content removed by social media platforms was overturned as the content was found to be wrongly removed. Such action by big tech giants brings into question the need for a systematised regulatory body that gives primacy to public safety.

CONCLUSION

The meta Lawsuit is more than a legal battle. It is a Pandora’s box that slowly unravels the secrets of big tech giants that have accelerated their expansion and growth. While the internal documents will expose the algorithm misuse and lack of regulation, the larger point focuses on the public vulnerabilities and the digital threats an individual is exposed to persistently.

The lawsuit has forced us to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that while social media has become the new normal, we are compromising on our safety every day. There is a need for an overhaul of the existing regulatory system and re-establishment of institutional structures where public safety is a priority over personal ambition. Here, institutions act fast enough, before the next breach of faith becomes inevitable. 

---

BY ANANYA SHARMA

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com