Meta Platforms will face a federal jury beginning Tuesday in a landmark trial brought by four state attorneys general who allege the company deliberately designed its social media platforms to hook children, misled the public about the risks, and illegally collected data on minors.
The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The trial is expected to last approximately six weeks.
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are jointly seeking up to $1.4 trillion in penalties and product changes under consumer protection laws they allege Meta violated. The states also claim Meta broke the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, known as COPPA, by collecting personal data from children without parental consent.
"We allege in our complaint, and what we're prepared to prove at trial, is that they're deceiving consumers about Facebook and Instagram's dangers," New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said. "They're putting the profits ... over the health of a generation of young people."
The suit is a bellwether case within a broader multidistrict litigation that consolidates thousands of similar lawsuits to create consistency and avoid duplication in tasks such as evidence gathering.
Legal experts have compared the litigation to landmark cases against tobacco and opioid manufacturers, which changed both corporate behavior and public understanding of the risks associated with those products.
Central to the states' argument is the claim that Meta deliberately engineered features to capture young users' attention and extend their time on its platforms. These features include the "like" button, the infinite-scroll function, and recommendation algorithms that, according to the complaint, "encourage compulsive use." Because Meta generates revenue through advertising, the longer young users remain on its platforms and the more precisely they can be targeted, the greater the company's financial gain.
The lawsuit further alleges that Meta prioritized engagement over the safety of young users, creating products that disrupted their sleep and education and, in the case of visual filters, were known to promote eating disorders and body dysmorphia. This occurred, the states argue, despite Meta's public statements that its platforms were designed to support the well-being of young people.
The complaint also alleges that Meta was aware children under 13 were using Instagram and Facebook in violation of its own policies, and that it collected their personal information without parental consent.
In a written statement, a Meta spokesperson rejected the claims, calling them limited and unsubstantiated and describing the financial demands as "vastly disproportionate."
"The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification," the spokesperson wrote. "We stand by our record of creating strong protections for teens, and look forward to making our case in court."
Social media companies have historically enjoyed some legal immunity under the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly shields platforms from liability based on content posted by users. However, the plaintiffs in this case are challenging the design of the platforms themselves, not the content users posted on them.
Meta has already suffered two adverse rulings in state courts this year on similar grounds. In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google responsible for the depression and anxiety of a young woman who compulsively used social media as a child, awarding her $6 million in damages. In a separate case, a New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million and implement new safety measures after a jury found the company had failed to protect minors from child sexual exploitation on its platforms.
Legal scholars have noted that the design-focused legal strategy, while potentially effective, presents its own complications. Stuart Benjamin, a professor at Duke University School of Law, said it may be difficult for courts to separate allegations of addictive product design from claims about addictive content.
"Can the claims you're letting go forward be disentangled from the claims you're saying can't go forward? Or is it all really one unified theory of harm, that you failed to have parental controls and you had an infinite feed of addicting content?" he said.
Experts also expect the trial to draw attention to potential discrepancies between what Meta executives said publicly and what internal documents reveal they knew privately about the effects of their products on minors. The states' complaint cites more than 100 potentially deceptive statements made by Meta personnel. In a pretrial ruling issued in June, Judge Gonzalez Rogers cited Meta's own documents as supporting the plaintiffs' claim that time-restriction tools were merely a "public relations stunt," noting that internal records showed Meta employees were aware that increased time on social media was harmful to teenagers.
"This litigation is shining a light on not just what Meta did, but also what Meta knew," said Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor of law at Stanford University. "The significance of this litigation isn't limited to who wins or how much Meta pays. The litigation itself can substantially change what the public knows," she added, noting that the case could shift public opinion, prompt regulatory action, or spur new legislation.
Legal analysts widely expect Meta to appeal any ruling against it, given the scale of the potential penalties. An appeal could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Meta reported in late July that an average of 3.6 billion people use its platforms each day.
"It's not as easy as it might seem for Meta to write a check" and settle, said Benjamin Zipursky, a professor at Fordham University's School of Law. The plaintiffs are "claiming humongous amounts of money, and there's a huge number of plaintiffs — and it's a potentially endless list of people going forward."
