Unredacted US court documents filed by school districts in a class action lawsuit against Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, allege the company quietly suppressed internal research that suggested its platforms could be contributing to mental health challenges among users. The documents describe how Meta discontinued a 2020 study, known as Project Mercury, after early results hinted that taking even a short break from its platforms might improve overall well-being. It’s the kind of claim that, at least on the surface, makes you pause and wonder how much companies decide to hold back when the findings aren’t flattering.
Key Takeaways
- Internal Research Allegedly Suppressed: Meta faces accusations that it ended Project Mercury, a 2020 internal study examining the mental health impact of its platforms.
- “Causal” Link Found: According to the unredacted filings, users who stepped away from Facebook and Instagram for a week reportedly experienced fewer feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison.
- Company Response: Meta disputes these claims, arguing the study’s methodology was flawed and stating that the company has long prioritised teen safety.
- Broader Lawsuit: The allegation is part of a sweeping class-action lawsuit accusing major social media platforms of hiding product risks from users, parents, and educators.
These allegations sit at the centre of a much broader lawsuit filed by multiple US school districts against major social media companies, including Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat. The plaintiffs argue that these platforms knowingly allowed young users to be exposed to harmful experiences and, in some instances, chose growth over transparency.
Internal Study Findings and Alleged Suppression
At the heart of the controversy is Project Mercury, an internal Meta research effort conducted in 2020. For this study, Meta’s researchers partnered with survey firm Nielsen to observe users who temporarily deactivated their Facebook and Instagram accounts. The court documents claim the initial findings weren’t what the company hoped for. Participants who stayed off the platforms for a week said they felt less depressed and less anxious. Some even described feeling less lonely and less caught up in social comparison, a pattern that might resonate with anyone who has ever taken a break from social media and noticed a subtle shift in mood.
Instead of exploring these results further, the filings allege Meta decided to shut down the project. Internally, leaders reportedly dismissed the findings as being influenced by the broader media narratives at the time. Yet, according to the documents, a staff researcher told Nick Clegg, who was Meta’s head of global public policy then, that the study’s conclusions were valid. The researcher reportedly wrote, “The Nielsen study does show causal impact on social comparison.” Another staffer allegedly went so far as to compare Meta’s decision to suppress the findings to the behaviour of the tobacco industry, saying it felt like doing research and then knowingly hiding harmful results. It’s a strong comparison, perhaps a bit startling, but it’s what the filings claim was said.
The Context of the Lawsuit
The documents were filed by the law firm Motley Rice on behalf of several US school districts and form part of a massive multi-district litigation that includes more than 1,800 plaintiffs. These include not just schools but also parents and state attorneys general. The central argument is that Meta and other social media companies intentionally concealed potential harms tied to their platforms, all while pushing for continued user engagement.
Other allegations against Meta include claims that the company allowed children under 13 to use its platforms and delayed safety features because they might affect growth. The plaintiffs also argue that Meta told US lawmakers it could not determine whether its platforms harmed teenage girls, despite internal research suggesting there were clear risks. It’s a contradiction that raises questions about what the company knew internally versus what it expressed publicly.
Meta’s Denial
A Meta spokesperson, Andy Stone, rejected the allegations and said the Project Mercury study was stopped due to flawed methodology, not because of the results. He insisted the company has spent more than a decade working on product improvements intended to protect teens. He described the claims in the lawsuit as “cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions” and said the full record would show that Meta has made meaningful changes over the years.
Meta has also filed a motion to strike the documents altogether, arguing that the plaintiffs’ push to unseal them is too broad. For now, the internal materials remain sealed, and the decision about whether they will become public rests with the court. A hearing on the filings is scheduled for January 26 in the Northern California US District Court.
Related FAQs
Q. What does “causal evidence of harm” mean in this context?
A. In this context, “causal evidence of harm” means that the research suggested a direct, cause-and-effect relationship where using Meta’s platforms (Facebook and Instagram) was a direct factor that led to negative outcomes like increased depression or anxiety. It is a stronger finding than simply a correlation, which only shows two things happening at the same time without proving one causes the other.
Q. What was Project Mercury?
A. Project Mercury was an internal research study that Meta (then Facebook) reportedly conducted in 2020. The goal was to look into the impact of their apps on users’ well-being, specifically by tracking the mental health of a group of users who temporarily deactivated their Facebook and Instagram accounts for one week.
Q. Who is filing the lawsuit against Meta and other social media companies?
A. The primary lawsuit is a large class-action litigation filed by US school districts along with parents and state attorneys general. They argue that social media companies like Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive and failed to protect young users from known risks, thereby causing a youth mental health crisis.
Q. How did Meta allegedly respond to the Project Mercury findings?
A. The court filings allege that Meta chose to shut down the research project and did not publicise the negative findings. The company allegedly claimed the negative results were unreliable, while internally, some staff acknowledged the study showed a “causal impact on social comparison.” Meta publicly denies these claims, stating the study’s methodology was flawed.
