Meta’s First Witness Testifies on Culture and Safety Issues
Arturo Béjar, who spent eight years on safety within Meta, testified in a trial in Oakland, telling a federal jury that the company’s safety issues stem from Mark Zuckerberg’s culture.
Key Takeaways:
- Béjar, a former Meta employee, described the company culture as hindering the implementation of safety features.
- He stated that Meta’s approach prioritized user engagement and data collection over youth safety.
- The trial, led by four state attorneys general, argues that Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to hook minors and keep them engaged.
Testimony Details:
Béjar, who worked on safety issues from 2009 to 2015 and again from 2019 to 2021, emphasized the disconnect between Meta’s stated concerns about youth safety and the actual design choices made. He highlighted how countermeasures were made optional rather than default settings, leading to minimal user adoption.
Meta’s lawyers challenged Béjar, questioning whether his teams had successfully implemented solutions to the described harms. This line of questioning aimed to suggest that the problems had solutions Meta chose not to build.
Context and Related Cases:
- Meta’s Defense: Meta’s counsel, Paul Schmidt, argued that the company was proactive about teen risks, had developed solutions, and hadn’t misled the public. They claim the states’ case relies on selectively quoted internal documents.
- Financial Implications: The potential penalties are substantial, with Meta stating the states seek up to $1.4 trillion, while California Attorney General Rob Bonta has suggested a figure closer to Meta’s annual revenue of around $200 billion.
- Other Legal Actions: In addition to the Oakland trial, a New Mexico court ordered Meta to pay $567 million for teen mental health, and a separate jury in Tennessee is examining Instagram’s design.
Why Béjar’s Testimony Matters:
Béjar’s direct examination in the Oakland trial is significant as he provides firsthand insight into Meta’s internal culture, contrasting it with the company’s public statements. His testimony is crucial in a case where states argue under consumer protection and children’s privacy statutes, lowering the burden of proof for demonstrating harm to individual users.