Meta Under Fire After Whistleblower Claims 100 Times More Teens Saw Graphic Content Than Company Reported

Meta is facing fresh scrutiny after whistleblower Arturo Béjar claimed the company's own measurements significantly underestimated the extent to which teenagers experienced harmful content on Instagram, with internal research suggesting some negative experiences occurred at rates up to 100 times higher than Meta's public figures indicated.

Béjar, a former Meta engineering director and consultant who worked on the company's user-safety efforts, is a key witness in a landmark US trial examining allegations that Meta deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to keep young users engaged while failing to adequately protect them from harm.

Whistleblower Claims 100-Fold Gap in Meta's Data

Béjar's evidence centres on a significant discrepancy between Meta's official 'prevalence' measurements and what users themselves reported experiencing on its platforms.

Internal research conducted during Béjar's time at Meta examined users' experiences with harmful interactions, including bullying and harassment. The research indicated that teenagers were encountering negative experiences far more frequently than the company's formal safety metrics suggested.

The discrepancy raises questions about how Meta measured harmful content and whether its public figures provided a complete picture of what young people were experiencing on Instagram.

Béjar has previously argued that Meta's approach to measuring harm was too narrow because it concentrated on content that explicitly violated the company's rules rather than the broader range of negative experiences reported by users.

How Meta Measured Harmful Content

Meta's 'prevalence' metric was designed to measure how frequently users encountered content that violated specific platform policies. However, Béjar's research took a different approach by asking users directly about their experiences.

That distinction is significant because an interaction can be harmful or distressing to a teenager without necessarily meeting Meta's formal definition of a policy violation.

The internal research therefore offered a different picture of the experiences of young users, particularly around bullying, harassment and unwanted interactions.

Béjar has previously told US lawmakers that Meta had information showing teenagers were experiencing problems on its platforms but failed to adequately address concerns raised internally. His testimony has made him a significant witness for the states bringing the current case against the company.

Meta Accused of Ignoring Internal Safety Concerns

The allegations form part of a broader argument that Meta knew its platforms could expose young users to harmful experiences but prioritised engagement and growth.

The 29 states suing Meta allege that the company knowingly designed features that encouraged children and teenagers to spend more time on Facebook and Instagram. They point to features including infinite scrolling, personalised recommendations and notifications as examples of design choices they say were intended to maximise engagement.

The states also accuse Meta of misleading the public about the safety of its platforms and of unlawfully collecting data from children under 13 without parental consent.

Meta has denied the allegations and argued that evidence presented by the states has been taken out of context. The company says it has invested heavily in safety measures and has removed millions of accounts belonging to users who were under the minimum age requirement.

What the Meta Trial Is About

The trial began in federal court in Oakland, California, and is being led by attorneys general from California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey on behalf of a coalition of 29 states.

The states allege that Meta violated consumer protection and federal privacy laws by designing Facebook and Instagram in ways that were addictive to young users and by failing to adequately protect children.

They are seeking damages of up to $200 billion (£148 billion) and are also asking the court to order changes to the design and operation of Meta's platforms. Such changes could affect features that are central to how users interact with Instagram and Facebook.

The case is expected to last several weeks, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri among the executives expected to testify.

Wider Allegations Around Instagram and Facebook

The trial comes amid a growing wave of legal challenges over the impact of social media on children and teenagers.

The states argue that Meta understood the vulnerabilities of young users and used that knowledge to make its platforms more engaging, while failing to address evidence that certain features could contribute to harm.

The allegations also extend beyond addiction. The lawsuit claims Meta collected personal information from children under 13 and failed to take adequate steps to prevent underage users from accessing its services.

Meta maintains that the states have failed to establish that its products were deliberately designed to harm children and has pointed to its existing parental controls, teen protections and other safety measures.

Meta Trial Draws Big Tobacco Comparisons

The scale of the case has prompted comparisons with the legal battle against the tobacco industry in the 1990s.

A report noted parallels between the two cases, particularly the argument that a powerful and profitable industry allegedly knew about potential harms associated with its products while continuing to prioritise commercial interests.

However, the comparison does not mean Meta faces the same outcome as the tobacco companies. The immediate consequences of the current case could include substantial financial penalties and court-ordered changes to Facebook and Instagram rather than the company's break-up.

For Meta, Béjar's allegations add another layer to the central question facing the court: whether the company's internal understanding of risks to young users was significantly different from the picture it presented publicly.

The outcome could have consequences far beyond a potential financial penalty. If the states succeed, Meta could be forced to make significant changes to the way Facebook and Instagram are designed, potentially affecting some of the features that have helped make the platforms among the world's most widely used social networks.