Meta Platforms Inc., the tech giant behind Facebook and Instagram, faces fresh allegations that it deliberately suppressed internal research revealing the harmful effects of its social media platforms on users’ mental health. According to unredacted court filings unsealed in a lawsuit brought by U.S. school districts, Meta halted studies after they uncovered “causal evidence” linking platform usage to increased depression, anxiety, and loneliness. The documents, part of a broader legal battle involving multiple tech companies, paint a picture of a corporation prioritizing growth over user well-being, even as internal data suggested otherwise.

The filings stem from a complaint by law firm Motley Rice, representing school districts nationwide suing Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat. They claim Meta’s leadership ignored or buried findings from experiments showing that deactivating accounts led to measurable improvements in users’ mental health. One key study reportedly found that participants who took breaks from Facebook experienced reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety, yet Meta chose not to publish or expand on these results, opting instead to discontinue the research line.

This isn’t the first time Meta has been accused of downplaying the downsides of its products. Whistleblower Frances Haugen’s 2021 revelations exposed internal documents indicating Instagram’s negative impact on teenage girls’ body image, sparking congressional hearings and public outcry. The latest allegations build on that narrative, suggesting a pattern of behavior where potentially damaging insights are sidelined to protect the company’s bottom line.

Uncovering the Buried Studies

At the heart of the court documents is a 2019 internal experiment where Meta researchers analyzed user behavior after account deactivation. Participants reported lower levels of social comparison—a psychological phenomenon where individuals feel inadequate by comparing themselves to others online—leading to better overall mental health. Despite these findings, Meta allegedly informed Congress in 2021 that it lacked data to quantify harms to teens, a claim now contradicted by the unsealed files.

Sources familiar with the matter, as reported by Reuters, indicate that rather than pursuing further validation or mitigation strategies, Meta’s executives called off additional work. This decision came amid growing regulatory scrutiny, with the company facing pressure from lawmakers to address platform addiction and its effects on youth.

The allegations extend beyond mental health to broader safety issues. Court papers accuse Meta of tolerating sex trafficking on its platforms and prioritizing user engagement over safety features, echoing concerns raised in a recent TIME article that detailed how the company allegedly hid harms to teens for years.

Internal Dissent and Comparisons to Addictive Substances

Insiders at Meta and other social media firms have reportedly likened their platforms to drugs, with one employee quoted in filings as saying, “We’re basically pushers.” This sentiment, highlighted in a POLITICO report, underscores a corporate culture aware of the addictive nature of endless scrolling and notifications, yet reluctant to curb features that drive revenue.

Public discourse on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) reflects widespread frustration, with users and experts posting about studies linking social media to mental health declines. Recent threads discuss large-scale research showing Facebook exposure correlating with increased depression among college students, fostering unfavorable social comparisons that impair academic performance. These online conversations amplify the court claims, suggesting a consensus that tech giants have long known about these risks.

Meta has pushed back, dismissing the allegations as “cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions” designed to mislead. In statements to outlets like CNBC, the company argues that its research is ongoing and that it invests heavily in safety tools, such as parental controls and time limits on Instagram.

Broader Industry Implications and Regulatory Fallout

The lawsuit’s revelations come at a pivotal time for the tech industry, as governments worldwide ramp up oversight of social media’s societal impact. In the U.S., bills like the Kids Online Safety Act aim to hold platforms accountable for harmful content, while the European Union’s Digital Services Act imposes strict transparency requirements on user data handling.

Experts point to a history of suppressed research across the sector. A systematic review discussed in academic circles, and echoed in X posts, highlights how social media encourages non-disclosure of mental health issues, complicating treatment efforts. Meanwhile, a massive study of over 400,000 college students, referenced in various online forums, found that platforms like Instagram exacerbate depression through constant exposure to idealized lives.

Meta’s alleged actions mirror those of other companies. For instance, TikTok has faced similar scrutiny for algorithm-driven content that promotes harmful behaviors. As detailed in an Engadget report, these buried studies raise questions about ethical responsibilities in product design, where engagement metrics often trump user health.

The Human Cost and Calls for Accountability

Beyond the legal jargon, the filings humanize the issue by citing internal Meta documents where employees expressed alarm over the platforms’ effects on vulnerable groups, particularly teenagers. One report allegedly showed that Instagram was the most damaging app for mental health, based on a study of 1,500 users, yet efforts to address this were minimal.

On X, sentiment is turning increasingly critical, with posts accusing Meta of prioritizing profits over people. Users share personal anecdotes of improved well-being after quitting social media, aligning with the court-cited experiments. This grassroots backlash is fueling demands for independent audits of tech research.

As the case progresses, plaintiffs are pushing for more unredacted documents, as noted in a Law360 article, arguing that Meta’s attorneys altered findings to downplay risks to young users. A recent order from a Washington, D.C., judge in related litigation supports this, compelling greater disclosure.

Path Forward Amid Growing Scrutiny

Industry insiders speculate that these revelations could accelerate antitrust actions against Meta, which already faces lawsuits over its market dominance. The company’s stock has fluctuated in response to negative headlines, reflecting investor concerns about long-term regulatory risks.

Comparisons to the tobacco industry’s history of hiding health risks are inevitable. Just as Big Tobacco buried studies on smoking’s dangers, critics argue Meta has done the same with digital addiction. A The Economic Times piece draws this parallel, noting how internal data showed users feeling less lonely after breaks, yet Meta continued aggressive growth strategies.

Looking ahead, experts advocate for mandatory third-party reviews of platform algorithms to ensure they don’t amplify harm. With global regulators watching closely, Meta’s handling of these allegations could set precedents for how tech giants manage the intersection of innovation and ethics.

The unfolding scandal underscores a fundamental tension in Silicon Valley: the drive for user retention versus the imperative to do no harm. As more details emerge from the courts, the pressure on Meta to reform its practices will only intensify, potentially reshaping the social media landscape for generations.