Meta is facing one of its most significant legal battles over allegations that its platforms were deliberately designed to keep children and teenagers engaged while exposing them to potential mental health and privacy risks.
Meta has returned to federal court in Oakland for a high-profile trial that could have far-reaching consequences for the way Facebook and Instagram are designed and operated.
The case was filed in 2023 by 29 state attorneys general, who accuse Meta of intentionally developing features that encourage excessive use among young people. The states also allege that the company misled parents, lawmakers and the public about the potential risks associated with its platforms and improperly collected data from children.
If the states prevail, Meta could face substantial financial penalties as well as court-ordered changes to its products and policies.
States Accuse Meta of Designing Platforms to Keep Kids Hooked
During opening arguments, Megan O’Neill, a deputy attorney general representing California, told jurors that Meta’s advertising-driven business model depends heavily on user attention and data.
According to the states, features including personalised recommendation systems, endless scrolling, likes and notifications were designed in ways that encourage users—particularly young people—to spend more time on the platforms.
The states further argue that Meta knew about potential risks but continued to present Facebook and Instagram as safe environments for children and teenagers.
O’Neill also alleged that Meta collected personal information from users under the age of 13 without obtaining the required parental consent, potentially violating the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
Whistleblower Takes the Stand
The states called former Facebook engineering director and whistleblower Arturo Béjar as their first witness.
Béjar previously worked on safety-related issues at Meta. During testimony, he said the company’s focus on rapidly developing and launching products often took priority over safety concerns.
He also described his own experience as a parent, saying he found it difficult to prevent his teenage daughter from encountering inappropriate material and unwanted approaches from strangers on Instagram.
Béjar is expected to continue his testimony during the next hearing.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta also criticised Meta’s approach, arguing that the company’s culture of moving quickly came at the expense of children’s wellbeing.
Meta Rejects the Allegations
Meta has strongly disputed the claims made by the states.
Paul Schmidt, representing Meta, told jurors that the lawsuit presents a distorted picture of the company’s platforms and relies selectively on internal documents and statements.
Meta argues that the states have failed to demonstrate clear real-world harm caused specifically by the company’s products. The company also highlighted safety measures including parental controls, notification settings and protections designed specifically for teenagers.
Meta has further invoked Section 230 of US federal law and the First Amendment in its defence.
Regarding the COPPA allegations, the company argues that proving a violation would require evidence showing that Meta knowingly allowed a significant number of under-13 users to remain on its services. It also says identifying children’s ages presents complicated privacy and verification challenges faced across the social media industry.
A Meta spokesperson described the states’ proposed financial penalties as excessive and said the allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence.
Meta Could Face Up to $1.4 Trillion in Damages
The financial stakes in the case are particularly significant.
The four states directly involved in the trial—California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey—could potentially seek combined damages of as much as $1.4 trillion.
That figure is close to Meta’s overall market valuation, although the attorneys general have indicated that the final amount they pursue could be considerably lower.
Beyond financial compensation, the states are also seeking changes to the way Meta’s platforms function.
Zuckerberg and Other Meta Executives May Testify
The trial is expected to continue for at least six weeks and could feature testimony from some of Meta’s most senior executives.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram chief Adam Mosseri and Global Head of Safety Antigone Davis are among those expected to appear.
The states are also expected to present evidence from former Meta employees who became whistleblowers, along with researchers examining the effects of social media on children’s and teenagers’ mental health.
The prosecution has indicated that it does not intend to call individual young users as witnesses.
The eight-member jury will have an advisory role. Ultimately, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will consider the jury’s findings before deciding the case and any potential damages.
Meta’s Growing Legal Troubles Over Youth Safety
The Oakland case is part of a much broader legal challenge facing major social media companies.
Meta, along with TikTok, YouTube and Snap, has been targeted by thousands of lawsuits alleging that social media platforms can encourage addictive use and contribute to mental health problems among young people.
The growing litigation has increasingly been compared to the legal reckoning once faced by the tobacco industry.
Earlier this year, a New Mexico jury found Meta responsible for violating state consumer protection laws and failing to adequately protect children from sexual predators. The company was ordered to pay $942 million and implement changes, including restrictions on certain push notifications. Meta has said it will appeal.
In another case, a Los Angeles jury ordered Meta and YouTube to collectively pay $6 million after finding that their platforms intentionally encouraged addictive use and contributed to a young woman’s mental health problems. Meta also plans to appeal that decision.
Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap have additionally reached settlements with school districts in some social media addiction lawsuits, although the financial terms were not publicly disclosed.
Could This Trial Change Social Media?
Meta has consistently rejected the idea that its platforms can be characterised as inherently addictive and says it has invested heavily in protecting younger users.
The company points to measures such as parental supervision tools, stronger privacy settings for teenagers and reminders encouraging users to take breaks.
Critics, however, argue that these protections do not go far enough and that the underlying design of social media platforms continues to encourage prolonged engagement.
The outcome of the latest trial could therefore extend beyond Meta. A ruling requiring major changes to recommendation systems, notifications, data collection or other platform features could influence how the wider social media industry approaches youth safety, privacy and user engagement.