New court documents submitted to US authorities allege that Meta willfully concealed evidence directly linking the use of its platforms to harmful effects on users' mental health, particularly among younger users. The plaintiffs argue that the company downplayed known risks for years, prioritizing growth and engagement above all else.
According to these documents, internal research allegedly showed significant impacts on the well-being of teenagers, including effects on anxiety, self-esteem, and compulsive online behavior. The plaintiffs claim that Meta failed to share these findings with users or authorities and resisted any publication that could damage its image or advertising revenue.
The accusations also highlight measures deemed insufficient to protect young people. Some security policies were allegedly maintained despite their ineffectiveness, while other initiatives were reportedly abandoned because they risked reducing time spent on the platforms.
Meta attempted to block the release of internal documents, citing confidentiality and the protection of its research processes. The applicants, on the other hand, claim that these documents demonstrate a deliberate intention to conceal "causal" findings about the harmful effects of social media.
The proceedings also mention that TikTok allegedly influenced the National PTA, a major American parents' organization, to publicly adopt positions favorable to the platform on safety issues. This dimension broadens the controversy to include all tech giants, accused of manipulating public opinion on the risks associated with young people's digital use.
The case is expected to continue in the coming months, with a legal battle focused on access to internal documents and the central question: did the platforms knowingly and deliberately conceal the extent of their wrongdoing?
