Meta’s court losses spell trouble for AI research, consumer safety

Over a decade ago, Meta – then known as Facebook – hired researchers in the social sciences with the goal of analyzing how the social network’s services were impacting users. It was a way for the company and its peers to show they were serious about understanding the benefits and potential risks of their innovations. 

But as Meta’s court losses this week illustrate, the researchers’ work can become a liability. Brian Boland, a former Facebook executive who testified in both trials — one in New Mexico and the other in Los Angeles — says the damning findings of Meta’s internal research and documents seemingly contradicted how the company portrayed itself in public. Juries in the two trials determined that Meta inadequately policed its site, putting kids in harm’s way. 

Mark Zuckerberg’s company began clamping down on its research teams a few years ago after a Facebook researcher, Frances Haugen, became a prominent whistleblower. The newer crop of tech companies like OpenAI and Anthropic subsequently invested heavily in researchers and charged them with studying the impact of modern AI on users, and publishing their findings. 

With AI now getting outsized attention for the harmful effects it’s having on some users, those companies must ask if it’s in their best interest to continue funding research, or to suppress it. 

“There was a period of time when there were teams that were created internally who could start to look at things and, for a brief window, you had some absolutely outstanding researchers who were looking at what was happening on these products with a little bit more free rein than I understand they have today,” Boland said in an interview.

Meta’s two defeats this week centered on different cases but they had a common theme: The company didn’t share what it knew about its products’ harms with the general public.

Jury members had to evaluate millions of corporate documents, including executive emails, presentations and internal research conducted by Meta’s staff. The documents included internal surveys appearing to show a concerning percentage of teenage users receiving unwanted sexual advances on Instagram. There was also research, which Meta eventually halted, implying that people who curbed their use of Facebook became less depressed and anxious.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the cases didn’t rely solely on internal research to make their arguments, but those studies helped bolster their positions about Meta’s alleged culpability. Meta’s defense teams argued that certain research was old, taken out of context and misleading, presenting a flawed view of how the company operates and how it views safety.