Initial results, the suit says, indicated that participants who stopped using Facebook for a single week reported feeling less depressed, less anxious, less lonely and less inclined toward social comparison. The complaint asserts that Meta executives were “disappointed” by those preliminary outcomes and subsequently ordered the work to be discontinued.
“The company never publicly disclosed the results of its deactivation study,” the filing states. The document further alleges that Meta later provided incomplete or misleading information to Congress regarding what it knew about potential mental-health impacts tied to its services.
Internal concerns likened to tobacco research
Plaintiffs cite an unnamed Meta employee who, according to the complaint, compared the company’s handling of the findings to historic practices in the tobacco industry. The employee purportedly asked whether withholding unfavorable data might “look like tobacco companies doing research and knowing cigs were bad and then keeping that info to themselves.”
Beyond individual comments, the filing claims Meta “chose not to sound the alarm” when early data suggested its platforms could be linked to improved well-being when users disengaged. Plaintiffs argue that the company’s decision to stop the project prevented regulators, parents and educators from obtaining critical information about potential risks.
Broader litigation landscape
The lawsuit is one of several coordinated cases accusing large social-media firms of harming young users. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified remedies and demanding changes in platform design and policy. Official court documents and a case docket are available through the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which is overseeing the multidistrict proceedings.
Google, Snap and TikTok, which face similar allegations in the broader litigation, did not immediately respond to requests for comment referenced in the filing.
Imagem: Internet
Meta’s response
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone rejected the allegations in a written statement and in a series of social-media posts. Stone characterized the lawsuit as relying on “cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions” and said it presents a “deliberately misleading picture” of the company’s research activity.
According to Stone, the 2019 deactivation experiment showed only that “people who believed using Facebook was bad for them felt better when they stopped using it.” He argued that the study did not establish a causal link between Facebook usage and negative mental-health effects and added that similar outcomes have been observed in other publicly available deactivation studies.
Stone also pointed to policy changes Meta has introduced over the past decade, noting features such as teen-specific account protections and expanded parental controls. He emphasized that Meta “listened to parents” and “made real changes to protect teens,” assertions the plaintiffs dispute in their complaint.
Next steps in the case
The court will determine whether the newly unsealed claims warrant additional discovery or amendments to the consolidated complaint. Deadlines for responses from the defendants are expected in the coming months. If the case proceeds, Meta and other platforms could face depositions, document requests and potential courtroom testimony regarding internal research methods and decisions.
No trial date has been set. The outcome could influence future regulatory approaches to social-media design, especially where minors are concerned, though any policy implications would depend on judicial findings and potential settlements.
Crédito da imagem: Will Oliver/Bloomberg via Getty Images
