In a 2020 research project code-named "Project Mercury," Meta scientists worked with survey firm Nielsen to gauge the effect of "deactivating" Facebook, according to Meta documents obtained via discovery.
To the company's disappointment, "people who stopped using Facebook for a week reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness and social comparison," internal documents said.
Rather than publishing those findings or pursuing additional research, the filing states, Meta called off further work and internally declared that the negative study findings were tainted by the "existing media narrative" around the company.
Privately, however, a staffer insisted that the conclusions of the research were valid, according to the filing.
"The Nielsen study does show causal impact on social comparison," (unhappy face emoji), an unnamed staff researcher allegedly wrote. Another staffer worried that keeping quiet about negative findings would be akin to the tobacco industry "doing research and knowing cigs were bad and then keeping that info to themselves."
Despite Meta's own work documenting a causal link between its products and negative mental health effects, the filing alleges, Meta told Congress that it had no ability to quantify whether its products were harmful to teenage girls.
In a statement Saturday, Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the study was stopped because its methodology was flawed and that it worked diligently to improve the safety of its products.
"The full record will show that for over a decade, we have listened to parents, researched issues that matter most, and made real changes to protect teens," he said.
The allegation of Meta burying evidence of social media harms is just one of many in a late Friday filing by Motley Rice, a law firm suing Meta, Google, TikTok and Snapchat on behalf of school districts around the country.
Broadly, the plaintiffs argue the companies have intentionally hidden the internally recognised risks of their products from users, parents and teachers.
TikTok, Google and Snapchat did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Allegations against Meta and its rivals include tacitly encouraging children below the age of 13 to use their platforms, failing to address child sexual abuse content and seeking to expand the use of social media products by teenagers while they were at school.
The plaintiffs also allege that the platforms attempted to pay child-focused organisations to defend the safety of their products in public.
By and large, however, the allegations against the other social media platforms are less detailed than those against Meta. The internal documents cited by the plaintiffs allege:
1. Meta intentionally designed its youth safety features to be ineffective and rarely used, and blocked testing of safety features that it feared might be harmful to growth.
2. Meta required users to be caught 17 times attempting to traffic people for sex before it would remove them from its platform, which a document described as "a very, very, very high strike threshold."
3. Meta recognised that optimising its products to increase teen engagement resulted in serving them more harmful content, but did so anyway.
4. Meta stalled internal efforts to prevent child predators from contacting minors for years due to growth concerns, and pressured safety staff to circulate arguments justifying its decision not to act.
5. In a text message in 2021, Mark Zuckerberg said that he wouldn't say that child safety was his top concern "when I have a number of other areas I'm more focused on like building the metaverse." Zuckerberg also shot down or ignored requests by Nick Clegg, Meta's then-head of global public policy, to better fund child safety work.
Meta's Stone disputed these allegations, saying the company's teen safety measures are effective and that the company's current policy is to remove accounts as soon as they are flagged for sex trafficking.
He said the suit misrepresents its efforts to build safety features for teens and parents, and called its safety work "broadly effective."
"We strongly disagree with these allegations, which rely on cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions," Stone said.
The underlying Meta documents cited in the filing are not public, and Meta has filed a motion to strike the documents. Stone said the objection was to the over-broad nature of what plaintiffs are seeking to unseal, not unsealing in its entirety.
A hearing regarding the filing is set for January 26 in Northern California District Court.
