States accuse the company of designing Instagram and Facebook to hook young users while hiding the risks.
Opening arguments begin today in Oakland federal court in what could become Meta’s most consequential legal battle yet. Twenty-nine states, led in this phase by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, say the company deliberately built features that drive compulsive use among children and teens, then misled the public about the harm.
The case, filed in 2023, alleges Meta violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting data from users under 13 without parental consent. It also claims the platforms’ infinite scroll, constant notifications, likes and recommendation algorithms were engineered to maximize time spent—and ad revenue—despite internal knowledge of links to anxiety, depression, eating disorders and sleep loss.
High Stakes for Platform Design
Attorneys general are seeking both financial penalties and court-ordered changes. Meta has projected potential damages as high as $1.4 trillion, roughly its market value. State officials counter that the figure is inflated and point toward hundreds of billions at most, closer to $200 billion in some estimates. More significant may be the demand for design fixes: age restrictions, elimination of infinite scroll, limits on notifications, and stronger parental tools.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta framed the core accusation clearly: “Meta designed a dangerous product for young users, knew it to be dangerous, and then lied to children, families and the community about how dangerous it was.”
Zuckerberg asked about Meta’s targeting of ‘teens’ and ‘tweens’ : NPR
Recent Losses Raise the Pressure
The trial arrives after two state-court defeats this year. A New Mexico jury found Meta liable for harming children’s mental health and enabling exploitation, leading to $375 million in penalties plus a later $567 million abatement fund for treatment and prevention—totaling $942 million. A Los Angeles jury earlier awarded $6 million in a personal-injury case involving social media addiction.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who oversees the multidistrict litigation, denied Meta’s bid for summary judgment in June. She allowed key claims on deception, unfair practices and COPPA violations to proceed. An eight-person advisory jury will hear the case; Rogers will make the final decision. Expected witnesses include Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and former Meta employee Arturo Béjar, a whistleblower whose research on teen safety tools is central to the states’ evidence.
Meta’s Defense and Industry Implications
Meta denies the allegations. A company statement called the states’ claims “unsubstantiated” and the financial demands “vastly disproportionate.” Officials point to existing youth accounts, parental controls, AI age verification and research collaborations as evidence of good-faith efforts.
Legal experts describe the case as potentially existential. A loss could force nationwide design changes that reduce engagement—and revenue—while setting a template for similar suits against other platforms. A win would strengthen Meta’s arguments that Section 230 and First Amendment protections shield product decisions.
The trial is expected to last six to eight weeks. Whatever the outcome, it marks a sharp escalation in efforts to hold social media companies accountable for how their products shape the daily lives—and mental health—of the next generation.
AI Disclosure: This article was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools and was reviewed and edited by the Glowls News editorial team before publication.