Prosecutors in an Oakland court case allege Meta exploited how children’s brains work to make Instagram and Facebook more addictive, with the aim of keeping users engaged. They also argue Meta misled the public about the risks of its platforms for young users.
The prosecution says Meta’s design and business incentives lead to engagement maximisation, including actions that they claim help gather user data. Prosecutor Megan O’Neill further contends that Meta concealed or downplayed potential harms associated with the services. The case centres on claims about both product design choices and the information Meta provides about those risks, as argued by the prosecution during court proceedings.
Across the two reports, the core allegations are consistent: the prosecution frames Meta’s conduct as targeting children’s behavioural vulnerabilities, using engagement-driven features, and failing to adequately disclose risks to the public.
