The heart of a pivotal legal battle over social media accountability revolves around a critical inquiry: did Meta misrepresent or obscure the realities of its platform’s safety, all the while possessing contrary knowledge?

New Mexico launched its case on Monday, contending that Meta’s top brass often made public claims that starkly conflicted with the company’s internal findings regarding the risks Facebook and Instagram posed to teenagers. Don Migliori, representing the state, argued that Meta placed greater importance on profits and its professed dedication to free speech over safeguarding young users. In contrast, Meta’s attorney, Kevin Huff, assured the jury in New Mexico that the company had not misled anyone. He emphasized that Meta frequently communicates potential risks associated with its services, acknowledging that not all policy violations are immediately detectable. Huff clarified, “This case is not about whether inappropriate content exists on Facebook and Instagram.” He acknowledged the occasional breach of the platform’s safeguards but insisted, “the evidence will demonstrate that Meta has been truthful.”

This case is one of two major trials regarding social media liability that began with opening statements on Monday. The other unfolds in a Los Angeles state courtroom, where lawyers for a young individual, identified as K.G.M., claim that Meta and YouTube designed their platforms to encourage addictive use, adversely affecting users’ mental health. The Los Angeles trial serves as a precursor to a series of lawsuits against social media companies, all alleging similar user harms.

In New Mexico, the case spearheaded by Attorney General Raúl Torrez also accuses Meta of creating addictive products. Moreover, this case features an investigation using decoy accounts, which purportedly attracted suspected child predators on Meta’s platforms. The opening statement revealed that three suspected predators were apprehended following this sting operation.

The jury faces the task of determining if Meta misrepresented or concealed the potential dangers of using Instagram or Facebook. Migliori, during his opening remarks, consistently contrasted slides labeled “what Meta said” with “what Meta knew.”

On the slides detailing what Meta said, he showed statements by company executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, saying things like that kids under 13 were not allowed on its platforms, or that users over 19 weren’t allowed to send private messages to teen accounts that don’t follow them. Then, Migliori would display slides that he said showed Meta knew the reality was different — for instance, executives estimated 4 million accounts under 13 years of age were on Instagram. In one 2018 email from Zuckerberg to top executives, the CEO wrote that he found it “untenable to subordinate free expression in the way that communicating the idea of ‘Safety First’ suggests,” and added, “Keeping people safe is the counterbalance and not the main point.”

After Migliori finished his opening statement, Huff urged jurors to give Meta a chance to make its case and not to get “distracted by the disturbing pictures.” Huff didn’t deny that there’s some bad stuff on Facebook and Instagram, but said the company is upfront about that, and works on ways to mitigate it. “We wish the state would partner with us, rather than sue us.”

The state plans to call several former Meta employees, who will — according to the state — describe the company’s inadequate response to harmful behavior on its platforms. At least two of the former employees have previously testified before Congress: former Facebook engineering director and Instagram consultant Arturo Bejar and former Meta researcher Jason Sattizahn. Huff specifically urged the jurors to give Meta a chance to question Sattizahn before they reach any conclusions about his credibility. He also previewed Meta’s argument that what people might colloquially call social media addiction is misnamed. Addictions to substances like fentanyl can cause physical effects like withdrawal; presumably Meta will argue that social media does not create physical dependency. “Facebook is not like fentanyl,” Huff said. “No one is going to overdose on Facebook. Scientific studies say that people don’t get withdrawal symptoms when they stop using Facebook like you would if you stopped using fentanyl.” The first witness to take the stand was an assistant principal who dealt with behavioral issues in students allegedly related to social media use.

Even before the trial began, Meta and the AG’s office were sparring in public. Meta spokesperson Andy Stone recently posted a lengthy thread on X accusing Torrez of using the case for his own political gain, and called the investigation into the company “ethically compromised.” While Torrez accuses Meta of putting profits over kids safety, Stone accuses Torrez of opting “for a self-promotional political victory over child safety.” Stone wrote that Torrez’s office used images of real kids without consent for the fake profiles they created as “bait” for child predators on Meta’s platforms. The AG’s office used “aged” accounts that Stone said are “often hacked accounts resold on illicit markets,” which he said would taint any evidence “because these are real accounts with real histories that behave in particular ways.”

“Instead of making its products safer, Meta is spending its time and resources falsely smearing law enforcement officials who put child predators behind bars,” deputy communications director at the New Mexico Department of Justice Chelsea Pitvorec said in a statement responding to Stone’s thread. “The company is deflecting attention from New Mexico’s undercover investigation because even Meta’s highest-paid PR flacks cannot defend why Meta’s platforms expose children to criminals. Our lawsuit alleges that Meta has misled the public about the dangers of its platforms for years, and we are not surprised to see the company continue to make blatantly false statements while our trial is underway. We look forward to presenting the jury with the evidence we’ve obtained in over two years of litigation.”