Meta faces $200 billion penalty as safety tools 'designed to fail'

Meta's defense that it built tools to protect teens is unraveling under testimony from its own former engineer.

A former Meta engineering director testified Wednesday that safety features on Facebook and Instagram were "designed to fail," deepening the risk of a $200 billion penalty in a landmark trial brought by US states.

"'Take a Break' is a feature that's designed to fail," Arturo Bejar, a former Meta engineering director, said on the second day of the trial in Oakland, California.

Bejar, the first witness to take the stand, told the eight-person jury that Meta prioritized engagement and ad revenue over child safety, making tools to curb endless scrolling and notifications opt-in rather than default. Pausing notifications required navigating "10 different screens and 50 toggle buttons," he said, a hurdle most users never clear. He compared the setup to having to "turn on an airbag every time you get in the car." Popularity counters such as likes and follower tallies, he added, are "reward mechanisms that were designed for adults and are inherently unsafe for teenagers," while infinite scroll and autoplay videos keep young users engaged with no natural stopping point.

A loss for the parent company of Facebook and Instagram could trigger penalties of up to $200 billion, force fundamental changes to its business model, and send shockwaves through an industry that has largely escaped such liability. The trial, before Chief US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, is expected to last about six weeks.

'Big Tobacco Moment' Looms Over Meta

The case has drawn comparisons to the 1990s tobacco settlement, when US states secured billions in penalties and forced changes to how cigarettes were marketed. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said states are intervening where "Congress failed to act," noting both cases involve "public health, and in some cases, marketing to kids that hurt kids."

California prosecutor Megan O'Neill painted Meta's model as one intended to "hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public," arguing Meta "exploited how kids' brains work."

What's at Stake for Meta

The lead states — California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey — allege Meta violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and made deceptive statements about its platforms. Another 25 states that sued in 2023 will head to trial later. The eight-person jury's verdict is advisory; Rogers will decide the case, the first in a multidistrict litigation of more than 3,000 active cases.

Meta's lawyer Paul Schmidt said "there can be no dispute that Meta has both recognized that people can struggle with their use of social media and tried to come up with tools to help them." But Bejar, who worked as an unpaid independent contractor on youth safety from 2019 to 2021, said he no longer believed Zuckerberg's public statements that Meta's products were designed with mental health in mind. In an Oct. 5, 2021 email to Zuckerberg, Bejar flagged "a critical gap in how we as a company approach harm," and testified the CEO never responded.

Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are among the star witnesses expected to testify, according to court documents. California Attorney General Rob Bonta declined to confirm whether Zuckerberg would be called to the stand. Days before the trial, Meta attempted to block Bejar from testifying, a move the judge denied. San Diego State University psychology researcher Jean Twenge is scheduled to continue expert testimony Thursday.

If the states prevail, Meta could be forced to make safety features default-on, restrict teen data collection, and face ongoing court oversight — a template other platforms would likely confront. The trial's outcome, expected by early October, will set a precedent for how US courts treat algorithmic design as a product-safety issue rather than protected speech under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.