Court documents reveal that Meta terminated internal studies when scientists found direct links between Facebook and Instagram use and psychological harm.
School districts suing the tech giant claim the company chose silence over safety.
Internal research called “Project Mercury” delivered results that Meta didn’t want to hear. The 2020 study, conducted with Nielsen, tracked what happened when people stepped away from Facebook and Instagram for just seven days. Users reported measurably lower depression, anxiety, loneliness, and negative self-comparison after the break.
Meta’s response? Shut down the research program entirely. Company executives blamed “existing media narrative” for tainting the results, effectively dismissing their own scientific findings. Yet behind closed doors, researchers confirmed the validity to Nick Clegg, Meta’s global public policy chief at the time.
“The Nielsen study does show causal impact on social comparison,” one unnamed researcher wrote, adding an unhappy face emoji. Another staffer drew a stark parallel to tobacco companies that discovered cigarettes caused harm but concealed the evidence.
The contradiction grew sharper when Meta testified before Congress. Despite possessing data showing causal connections between its platforms and mental health damage, the company claimed it couldn’t quantify whether its products harmed teenage girls.
Andy Stone, speaking for Meta, countered that the research stopped due to flawed methodology. He emphasized the company’s decade-long commitment to listening to parents and implementing teen protections.
School Districts Build Their Case
Law firm Motley Rice filed the allegations late Friday on behalf of school districts nationwide. The lawsuit targets Meta alongside Google, TikTok, and Snapchat, accusing all four of deliberately concealing known product dangers from users, parents, and educators.
The filing paints Meta as particularly culpable. According to internal documents obtained through discovery, the company allegedly:
Designed youth safety features to fail. Meta created protections knowing they would see minimal use and blocked testing of stronger measures that might slow platform growth.
Set impossibly high bars for enforcement. Users trafficking people for sex needed 17 separate violations before Meta would ban them—a threshold one document called “very, very, very high.”
Prioritized engagement over safety. Engineers recognized that boosting teen activity meant exposing them to more harmful content but proceeded regardless.
Delayed action against predators. Meta reportedly stalled efforts to stop adults from contacting minors for years, with safety teams pressured to justify inaction based on growth concerns.
A 2021 text from Mark Zuckerberg suggests child safety ranked below other priorities. He stated he wouldn’t call it his top concern “when I have a number of other areas I’m more focused on like building the metaverse.” The filing also claims Zuckerberg rejected or ignored Clegg’s requests for increased child safety funding.
Stone disputed these characterizations, calling the allegations cherry-picked and misinformed. He defended Meta’s teen safety measures as effective and noted the company now removes sex trafficking accounts immediately upon detection.
Other Platforms Face Scrutiny
TikTok allegedly sponsored the National PTA, then privately celebrated its influence over the child advocacy organization. Internal communications quoted in the filing show TikTok officials claiming the PTA would “do whatever we want going forward” and make public announcements on the platform’s behalf.
The filing includes fewer specific allegations against Google and Snapchat. All three companies—TikTok, Google, and Snapchat—did not respond to requests for comment.
Plaintiffs argue the platforms knowingly encouraged children under 13 to create accounts, failed to address child sexual abuse material, and worked to increase teen usage during school hours. The lawsuit also claims these companies attempted to pay child-focused organizations for public safety endorsements.
Meta has moved to strike the documents referenced in the filing. Stone clarified the objection concerns the broad scope of materials plaintiffs want unsealed rather than opposing disclosure entirely. The underlying Meta documents remain confidential.
Northern California District Court scheduled a hearing on the matter for January 26.
Written by Vytautas Valinskas
