Four U.S. states are leading a broader case brought by 29 states that accuses Meta of designing its platforms to encourage excessive use among young people, misleading consumers about safety risks and violating federal child-privacy protections.
Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is facing a landmark federal trial in Oakland, California, over allegations that it deliberately designed features on its platforms to keep children and teenagers engaged for longer periods while downplaying the potential risks to young users.
The case, which began on August 18, is being heard by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and is expected to last about six weeks.
The litigation stems from a lawsuit filed in 2023 by a coalition of 29 state attorneys general. The current trial combines federal claims brought by all 29 states under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA, with state consumer-protection claims brought by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey. A separate group of 14 states pursuing claims under their own laws is scheduled to go to trial in February 2027.
At the heart of the case is whether Meta knowingly used product features and design choices that encouraged compulsive use by children and teenagers, while making public statements that allegedly misled parents and consumers about the safety of its platforms.
The states allege that Meta’s Facebook and Instagram products were designed to exploit vulnerabilities associated with adolescent development.
They point to features including recommendation systems, notifications and infinite scrolling, arguing that these mechanisms encourage users to remain on the platforms for longer periods and can contribute to harmful patterns of use.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has accused Meta of knowing that some of its product features posed risks to young users while failing to adequately address those risks.
In a statement ahead of the trial, Bonta said the company had designed and deployed features that drove excessive use among children and teenagers while misleading users, families and the public about the existence and severity of those risks.
The states also accuse Meta of violating COPPA, the federal law governing the online collection of personal information from children under 13. I
In June, Judge Rogers rejected Meta’s attempt to obtain summary judgement and ruled that California had established that Meta did not obtain parental consent in a manner sufficient to satisfy COPPA. The ruling allowed the case to proceed to trial.
The prosecution is expected to rely heavily on Meta’s internal research, company communications and testimony from former employees to argue that the company understood the risks associated with its platforms but prioritized user engagement and business interests.
Former Meta engineering director Arturo Béjar has already testified in the trial. Béjar, who previously worked on safety issues at the company, has told the court that he raised concerns about harmful experiences affecting young users and that the company did not respond adequately to some of the problems he identified.
The states are seeking financial penalties as well as changes to the way Facebook and Instagram operate. Among the remedies they are pursuing are restrictions on certain product features and stronger measures to protect young users. The precise scope of any eventual remedies will depend on the court’s findings and orders.
Also Read:Â Meta becomes latest firm to report AI hack
Meta rejected the allegations and argues that the states have not demonstrated that it deliberately designed its platforms to harm children.
The company has also challenged the states’ characterization of social media as addictive, arguing that “social media addiction” is not an established psychiatric diagnosis and that the states have not shown that Meta made false statements about the alleged addictiveness of its products. Meta has described the potential penalties being sought as unsupported by the evidence.
The company has also highlighted measures it has introduced to strengthen protections for teenagers. In 2026, Meta expanded its Teen Accounts and introduced additional age-appropriate content settings, age-assurance measures and parental controls across Instagram, Facebook and Messenger.
It has also added tools that give parents greater visibility into the content and topics influencing their teenagers’ Instagram experiences.
Meta maintains that protecting young users is a priority and disputes the suggestion that its products were deliberately designed to cause harm.
The financial stakes in the case are unusually large. Meta said in a July court filing that California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey could seek up to $1.4 trillion in penalties if they prevail, based on the states’ proposed methodology for calculating penalties.
The figure represents a potential maximum based on the number of alleged violations and applicable state penalties; it is not an amount a court has awarded or necessarily will award.
Meta has argued that a penalty of that size would be unsupported by the evidence and has no precedent in consumer-protection enforcement. The 29-state litigation is also only one part of Meta’s wider legal battle over youth safety.
In Tennessee, the company faced a separate state trial in July over allegations that Instagram was designed to drive compulsive use among teenagers and that Meta misled the public about the platform’s safety.
In March, a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for misleading consumers about the safety of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp and awarded the state $375 million.
A judge subsequently ordered Meta to pay an additional $567 million and imposed measures aimed at strengthening protections for young users. Meta has said it plans to appeal the New Mexico ruling.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify during the California proceedings, adding further significance to a case that could influence how social media companies approach product design and youth safety. Other senior Meta personnel are also expected to appear during the trial.
The proceedings are being closely watched because of the potential implications beyond Meta. A ruling against the company could lead to substantial financial penalties and require changes to features and practices on Facebook and Instagram, while potentially strengthening similar legal challenges against other social media companies.
For Meta, a victory would reinforce its argument that the states have failed to establish a legal basis for holding the company responsible for alleged harms associated with social media use.
A ruling against it, meanwhile, could become an important precedent in the growing effort by U.S. states to regulate how technology companies design and operate products used by children.
Fox News
