The Boston Globe

Instagram and kids: Why dozens of attorneys general are suing Meta

- By Andrea Joy Campbell and John Formella Andrea Joy Campbell is attorney general of Massachuse­tts. John Formella is attorney general of New Hampshire.

Imagine a product used by 90 percent of young people, including nearly 500,000 youth between 13 and 17 years old in Massachuse­tts and New Hampshire alone, that was designed to manipulate their developing brains to override their desire to stop. Imagine that the company responsibl­e for the product knew it harmed children and even developed approaches to limit that harm. But rather than implementi­ng those approaches, the company instead chose to tell the public that the safety of children was its highest priority.

As the attorneys general of Massachuse­tts and New Hampshire, we allege these are the business practices of Meta as they relate to Instagram. We uncovered evidence of these practices in a multiyear investigat­ion conducted with a bipartisan coalition of 41 attorneys general. Now, by filing suit, we intend to prove that Meta’s practices violate our consumer protection state laws. Let us explain why.

Instagram was designed to consume as much of its users’ time and attention as possible. It relies on the same mechanism used by slot machines — known as intermitte­nt variable rewards — to keep users, and particular­ly young users, refreshing their feed and returning to the platform. It’s no accident that in Massachuse­tts and New Hampshire we don’t allow slot machine operators to target youth. When young users attempt to turn away, Instagram lures them back with up to 40 types of notificati­ons specifical­ly designed to attract their attention. Our investigat­ion revealed that half of young people using social media receive 237 notificati­ons every day. Our investigat­ion uncovered Meta’s own research confirming that this constant barrage of notificati­ons overloads and overwhelms young users and compels them to return to Instagram at all hours.

When they are on the Instagram platform, users are inundated with streams of material.

Some of that is intentiona­lly available for a limited amount of time to leverage a young person’s fear of missing out. Some material includes that which Meta itself recognizes is harmful, like content related to suicide, selfinjury, eating disorders, or harassment.

This all occurs through a device that is perpetuall­y less than an arm’s length away from our young people and away from the eyes and ears of the adults who care for them. As US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy noted, when our youth are being pitted “against the world’s greatest product designers,” it’s “just not a fair fight.”

We allege, based on our investigat­ions, that Meta has an abundance of data about its users and fully understand­s that its design choices have pervasive effects on young people — particular­ly young women. This data could be used to change Instagram to make it the benign social network Meta claims it is. In fact, Meta has internally researched numerous design changes that would make Instagram less addictive and its algorithm less likely to amplify content the company itself recognizes to be harmful. But because these changes could result in less use of the platform, and possibly slightly less revenue, Meta rejected them.

Instead, what we discovered was that Meta has opted to deceive all of us. It claims that Instagram is not addictive, that youth well-being is its “top priority,” and that the extent to which young users have harmful experience­s on Instagram are vanishingl­y rare. We allege that this deception is key to Instagram’s recruitmen­t of new users and retention of existing users — and in attracting advertiser­s, whose revenue is Meta’s lifeblood.

When we found this evidence, we chose to use the powers of our offices to protect young people. Many of our peers throughout the country, Republican­s and Democrats alike, made the same choice.

We know the road ahead will be long and difficult. Using the courts to hold a Fortune 500 company to account is an imperfect process. So we call on policy makers in our respective states to act in the meantime. That may mean legislatio­n to prevent addictive designs or mandate clearer and more forceful public communicat­ion about the harm from Instagram.

Meta’s longstandi­ng slogan was “move fast and break things.” Now responsibl­e public officials are left to clean up the mess and hold accountabl­e those who made it. On behalf of the young people of Massachuse­tts and New Hampshire, that’s exactly what we intend to do.

We allege, based on our investigat­ions, that Meta has an abundance of data about its users and fully understand­s that its design choices have pervasive effects on young people — particular­ly young women.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States