Meta’s internal research study, called Project MYST, created in partnership with the University of Chicago, found that parental supervision and control, such as time limits and access restrictions, had little impact on children’s compulsive social media use. The study also found that children who experienced stressful life events were more likely to lack the ability to appropriately regulate their social media use.
That’s one of the notable claims made in testimony in a social media addiction trial that began last week in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The plaintiff in this lawsuit is identified by his initials “KGM” or his first name “Kayley.” She, along with her mother and others participating in the lawsuit, accuses social media companies of creating “addictive and dangerous” products that cause young users to suffer from anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, eating disorders, self-harm and suicidal thoughts.
The case is one of several landmark trials this year accusing social media companies of harming children. The outcome of these lawsuits could impact how these companies approach young users and prompt regulators to take further action.
In this case, the plaintiffs sued Meta, YouTube, ByteDance (TikTok), and Snap, but the latter two settled out of court before the trial began.
At the jury trial currently underway in Los Angeles, Ms. Cayley’s attorney, Mark Lanier, brought up an internal investigation of Meta, saying it found evidence that Meta knew of these specific harms but did not disclose them publicly.
Project MYST, which stands for Meta and Youth Social Emotional Trends Study, concludes that “parental and household factors have little association with teens’ reported levels of attentiveness to social media use.”
In other words, whether parents use parental controls or try to control their children’s social media use through household rules and supervision alone will not affect whether their children use social media excessively or compulsively. The study is based on a survey of 1,000 teens and their parents about their social media use.
The study also found that both parents and teens agreed on this point, stating that there was “no association between parent reports or teen reports of parental supervision and teen survey measures of teen attention and competence.”
If the study’s findings are accurate, it means that things like parental controls built into the Instagram app and time limits on smartphones won’t necessarily help teens reduce their tendency to overuse social media, plaintiffs’ lawyers argued. As the original complaint alleges, teens are being exploited by social media products whose flaws include algorithmic feeds designed to keep users scrolling, intermittent variable rewards that manipulate their dopamine supply, constant notifications, and a lack of tools for parental controls.
In his testimony, Instagram chief Adam Mosseri claimed he was not familiar with Mehta’s project MYST, even though documents showed Mehta had agreed to proceed with the research.
“We do a lot of research projects,” Mosseri said, after claiming he couldn’t remember anything specific about MYST other than its name.
But plaintiffs’ lawyers pointed to the study as an example of why social media companies, not parents, should be held liable for alleged harm. For example, he noted that Kaylee’s mother tried to stop her daughter’s social media addiction and use, sometimes even taking away her cell phone.
Additionally, the study found that teens who had more adverse experiences in their lives, such as dealing with an alcoholic parent, harassment at school, and other problems, reported being less careful when using social media. That means children who face trauma in real life are at higher risk for addiction, lawyers argued.
On stage, Mosseri seemed to partially agree with the findings, saying, “There could be a variety of reasons for this. What I often hear is that people are using Instagram as a way to escape from a more difficult reality.” Mehta cautions against classifying any kind of overuse as an addiction. Instead, Mosseri said the company uses the term “questionable use” to refer to people who “spend more time on Instagram than they are comfortable with.”
Lawyers for Mehta, on the other hand, argued that the study was more narrowly focused on understanding whether teens felt they were using social media too much, rather than whether they were actually addicted. They also generally aimed to place more responsibility on parents and focus on the realities of life, rather than corporate social media products as catalysts for negative emotional states in children like Caylee.
For example, Mehta’s lawyer pointed out that Kaylee’s parents are divorced, her father is abusive, and she is bullied at school.
It remains to be seen how the jury will interpret the results of research such as Project MYST and the testimony of both parties. However, Mosseri noted that the MYST findings were not publicly released and no warnings were issued to teens or parents as a result of the investigation.
Mehta has been approached for comment.
