Meta is facing one of the biggest legal battles in its history as the company goes to trial in California over allegations that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to keep young users engaged while failing to adequately protect children from potential harms associated with social media.
The case, which began in federal court in Oakland on Tuesday, involves a broader lawsuit brought by attorneys general from 29 U.S. states. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are leading the current trial, which is expected to last several weeks. The proceedings could become a major test of how technology companies are held responsible for the design and operation of social media platforms used by millions of children and teenagers.
The most striking element of the case is its potential financial impact. Meta has warned that the states’ claims could expose it to penalties of as much as $1.4 trillion. The figure is close to the company’s overall market value, making the potential liability extraordinary even by the standards of the technology industry.
However, the $1.4 trillion figure does not mean that Meta is expected to automatically pay that amount if it loses. It represents a maximum potential exposure under the penalties being pursued by the states. Legal experts have indicated that such an enormous award would be highly unusual.
At the heart of the lawsuit are allegations that Meta intentionally designed Facebook and Instagram with features that encourage compulsive use among children and teenagers. State attorneys general argue that the company knew its products could have negative effects on young users but continued to prioritize engagement and advertising revenue.
Prosecutors are expected to focus on features such as infinite scrolling, personalized recommendations, notifications and algorithmically selected content. These features are central to the way modern social media platforms operate, allowing companies to keep users engaged by continuously presenting new material.
The states argue that Meta’s business model encouraged the company to maximize the amount of time people spend on its platforms. According to the allegations, the company understood that young users could be particularly vulnerable to these engagement mechanisms.
The lawsuit also raises serious questions about children’s privacy.
The states accuse Meta of violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, commonly known as COPPA. The federal law establishes requirements for companies that collect personal information from children under the age of 13 and generally requires parental consent for the collection of such information.
Prosecutors allege that Meta collected and used information belonging to children without obtaining the necessary parental permission. They argue that this violated federal privacy protections and demonstrated that the company did not do enough to prevent children from accessing its services.
Meta strongly disputes the allegations.
The company has argued that it has invested heavily in protecting teenagers and improving safety across Facebook and Instagram. In recent years, Meta has introduced additional parental controls, restrictions on teen accounts, privacy settings and other tools intended to reduce potential risks for younger users.
Meta also rejects the broader accusation that it deliberately designed its platforms to make children addicted to social media. The company is expected to argue that the states have overstated the available evidence and are attempting to blame Meta for complicated mental health issues that have multiple causes.
The company has also pointed to the difficulty of determining a direct relationship between social media use and mental health problems. While researchers have raised concerns about excessive social media use and its potential effects on young people, the extent and nature of those effects remain subjects of significant debate.
The trial is nevertheless taking place against a backdrop of increasing legal pressure on technology companies.
Meta, along with other major social media companies such as TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat, has been targeted by numerous lawsuits alleging that their platforms contribute to mental health problems among children and teenagers.
The current case is particularly important because it combines allegations about addictive platform design with claims involving children’s privacy and consumer protection. A ruling against Meta could encourage other states and plaintiffs to pursue similar cases.
The trial could also lead to demands for major changes to the way Facebook and Instagram operate.
The states are seeking more than financial penalties. They want changes to Meta’s products and business practices that could affect how the platforms recommend content, how they collect information from children and how their systems are designed to engage younger users.
Potential reforms could include restrictions on certain engagement features, stronger age verification measures and changes to the algorithms that determine what young users see.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri are among the high-profile executives expected to play a role in the proceedings. Their testimony could provide insight into what Meta knew about potential risks to young users and how the company responded to those concerns.
The case comes after Meta suffered other significant legal setbacks involving allegations of harm to children.
Earlier this year, a separate case in New Mexico resulted in a major financial judgment against Meta and required the company to implement additional safety measures. In another California case, a jury found Meta and Google liable in a lawsuit brought by a young person who alleged that social media platforms contributed to serious mental health problems.
These cases have increased pressure on technology companies to demonstrate that their platforms are safe for children.
For Meta, the stakes in the latest trial extend far beyond the potential financial penalty. A major defeat could establish a legal precedent that makes technology companies more vulnerable to lawsuits based on the design of their products.
The case could also influence future regulations surrounding children and social media. Governments across the United States are increasingly examining whether existing privacy and consumer protection laws are sufficient to protect minors in an environment dominated by algorithm-driven platforms.
The central question is therefore not simply whether Facebook and Instagram can be addictive. It is whether Meta knew that certain features could create risks for young users, continued using those features despite those risks and violated laws designed to protect children.
The outcome could reshape the relationship between social media companies, regulators and young users.
If the states succeed, Meta could face significant financial penalties as well as pressure to fundamentally change parts of Facebook and Instagram. Other technology companies could also find themselves facing similar scrutiny.
If Meta prevails, the decision could make it more difficult for states and private plaintiffs to hold social media companies legally responsible for alleged harms caused by platform design.
Either way, the trial represents a defining moment for the social media industry. With billions of people using Meta’s platforms worldwide and young users representing a particularly important demographic, the court’s eventual decision could have consequences that extend far beyond the company itself.
For now, Meta is fighting to prevent a potential legal liability measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars — while the states are seeking to establish that protecting children online must take priority over maximizing engagement and profits.
