A Meta começou a enfrentar, nesta terça-feira (18), um dos processos mais relevantes de sua história em um tribunal federal de Oakland, na Califórnia. Segundo o portal Olhardigital.com.br, procuradores-gerais de 29 estados norte-americanos acusam a empresa de ter desenvolvido Facebook e Instagram com recursos que poderiam tornar as plataformas viciantes para crianças e adolescentes, além de ter apresentado ao público uma visão enganosa sobre sua segurança e de ter violado regras de proteção aos dados dos usuários mais jovens.
Por que esse julgamento é considerado histórico?
O caso leva para dentro de um tribunalfederal questions about the responsibility of large digital platforms for the design of products, the way risks are communicated and the protection of minors. Until now, much of the public debate has focused on complaints from families, academic research, congressional hearings and regulatory investigations. The central dispute now is whether those concerns can result in concrete changes to the operation of services used by billions of people.
The importance is also due to the breadth of the coalition. The 29 attorneys general represent more than half of the United States. If the court endorses the states’ legal arguments, the decision could influence not only Meta’s products, but also how other technology companies address child safety, age, parental controls, privacy and engagement mechanisms.
What exactly is Meta accused of?
The prosecutors maintain that Facebook and Instagram were conceived and operated to encourage repeated use, particularly among children and adolescents. According to the accusation, the company knew about possible harms associated with prolonged use but continued strategies focused on increasing the time spent on the platforms.
The legal thesis combines three types of allegations:
- Potentially addictive design: product features would be organized in a way that stimulates frequent return and reduces natural pauses.
- Lack of transparency: Meta would have misled users and the public about the safety of its platforms and the risks faced by younger users.
- Privacy violations: the collection, use and protection of data from children and adolescents would not have complied with applicable legal requirements.
These are allegations presented by the plaintiffs. A judicial accusation does not mean that the facts have already been proven. The company will have the opportunity to contest the interpretation of the evidence and present its own technical and legal arguments.
Which resources are at the center of the dispute?
The states specifically question mechanisms such as infinite scrolling, systems based on likes and content recommendation algorithms. The request does not necessarily mean removing each resource. It could be translated into limits, changes in default settings, additional warnings, restrictions for certain age groups or modifications to recommendation systems.
- Scroll infinite: by continuously loading content, it removes a natural visual cue that the browsing session has ended.
- Likes and social reactions: they provide immediate feedback and can reinforce the search for approval and continued interaction.
- Recommendations: instead of showing only posts from accounts followed by the user, the platform automatically selects content that may encourage longer sessions.
These features are not necessarily illegal simply because they encourage engagement. The court will need to assess how they operate together, how they affect minors, what information users receive and what safeguards exist. The central question is whether the platform’s overall design meets the legal obligations applicable to young people.
Who is leading the case?
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey lead the group of 29 states. Each of these four states presented claims under its own consumer protection legislation. The broader coalition also acts together on questions based on federal child privacy rules.
This division is relevant because the trial combines different legal fronts. State consumer protection laws can punish practices considered deceptive, abusive or unfair, while federal child privacy rules impose specific requirements for online services aimed at children. In the United States, the COPPA is the main federal law focused on protecting the personal data of children under 13, although the debate in this case also encompasses adolescents and issues of platform safety.
The participation of so many jurisdictions can also increase political and regulatory pressure on Meta, even if the final order does not adopt all the changes requested. The decisions of one court do not automatically create a nationwide rule, but they can influence other judges, legislators and regulators.
What changes could Facebook and Instagram undergo?
If the states win, the court may determine that the company must alter some features or the way they are offered. The scope, deadline and geographic reach will depend on the final decision. A measure applied only in the United States could produce different experiences depending on the country or account.
Possible consequences include:
- Reducing or redesigning automatic content loading.
- Changing how likes, notifications and other feedback mechanisms are displayed.
- Adapting recommendation systems for children and adolescents.
- Strengthening privacy controls, age verification or transparency about data collection.
- Providing clearer information to users and parents about potential risks.
These are scenarios contemplated by the legal dispute, not changes already confirmed. The judgment will need to establish which allegations were proven and which obligations are appropriate. Meta may also appeal, which could delay the implementation of any court order.
What is at stake beyond Meta?
The trial goes beyond a dispute involving one company. Facebook and Instagram operate at global scale and serve different age groups, so their product decisions affect design standards for the entire social media sector. A decision favorable to the states could encourage other platforms to review recommendation systems, default settings and their policies for protecting minors.
The case also changes the focus of the discussion. The question is no longer only whether young people spend too much time on social networks, but whether companies have a legal duty to adopt safer designs, communicate risks honestly and prevent privacy violations. If that view prevails, platform accountability will be assessed not only by what happens after problematic content is published, but also by the choices made before the user is exposed to it.
What is the impact for users in Brazil?
The immediate legal effect in Brazil will be limited. A decision from a United States federal court does not automatically change products or create obligations under Brazilian law. Nevertheless, the trial can become an important international reference on product safety, children’s privacy and the responsibility of digital platforms.
Brazil already has a legal framework that can support similar discussions. The General Data Protection Law classifies data related to children and adolescents as sensitive personal data. The Consumer Protection Code, the Marco Civil da Internet and the principles of the Child and Adolescent Statute also require special attention to the best interests of minors.
If Meta adopts changes globally, Brazilian users may notice modifications to the feed, recommendations, notifications, privacy settings or age-verification processes. If changes are restricted to the United States, however, it is possible to maintain different functionalities by market. Any global solution involving age verification would also have to be evaluated under Brazilian rules on necessity, proportionality and minimization of data collection.
Until a court order or a new company policy is announced, users should not assume that the platforms have already changed. Families can continue using available time-management, privacy and supervision tools, while monitoring the progress of the case for any new safeguards.
What should happen next?
Throughout the trial, the parties are expected to present evidence, question witnesses and debate the interpretation of state and federal laws. If there is no settlement, the court will issue a decision defining the obligations arising from the case. That decision may be challenged in higher courts.
The points to watch are the evidence about Meta’s knowledge of the risks, the relationship between the questioned features and prolonged use by minors, the company’s public safety communications and the effectiveness of privacy protections. The most important result for users will not be only who wins, but whether the court translates the decision into clear, verifiable and technically feasible measures.
Frequently asked questions about Meta’s trial
Does the trial mean that Facebook and Instagram will change immediately?
No. The process has only begun, and any alteration will depend on the final decision, its scope and possible appeals. The start of the trial does not mean that the requested features have already been modified.
Has it been proven that social networks cause addiction?
No. The states claim that Meta designed products capable of causing addictive use, but the court still needs to analyze evidence, technical arguments and applicable law. An accusation is not the same as a proven fact.
Why are the mechanisms of likes and infinite scrolling questioned?
Because they can make sessions longer and reduce moments in which the user naturally stops. The states argue that the combination of these mechanisms disproportionately affects children and adolescents.
Can the decision affect Instagram and Facebook in Brazil?
It may influence product standards and future regulation, but a US court order will not have automatic legal effect in Brazil. Any changes in the country will depend on Meta’s decision or on measures adopted by Brazilian authorities and courts.
What is the main legacy of the case?
The trial may establish clearer limits for the responsibility of social platforms regarding the design, safety and privacy of minors. Its impact will depend on the evidence presented and on how far the final decision goes.
Gostou desta matéria? Compartilhe com quem precisa ficar bem informado e assina a newsletter do GCBS NEWS para receber as principais notícias direto no seu e-mail.
