OAKLAND, California — Meta Platforms has gone to trial against a bipartisan coalition of 29 U.S. states that accuse the company of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to keep children and teenagers compulsively engaged, while misleading the public about the platforms’ risks and collecting children’s personal information without required parental consent.
The case, filed by state attorneys general in 2023, is one of the most consequential legal challenges Meta has faced. It could lead to penalties in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars and force the company to redesign core features used by billions of people worldwide, including infinite scroll, “like” counts, autoplay video and recommendation systems.
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are leading the trial in federal court on behalf of the broader coalition. The states argue that Meta built a business model around maximizing young users’ time and attention, even after the company knew that its products could contribute to anxiety, depression, body-image concerns, and other harms.
Meta denies the allegations. The company says the states have not shown that anyone was misled or harmed by the specific features at issue and argues that the case seeks disproportionate penalties for problems that affect the entire technology industry, including the challenge of verifying users’ ages online.
The trial has become a test of whether U.S. states can use consumer-protection and children’s privacy laws to regulate the design of social-media platforms, and whether courts will require large technology companies to change the engagement systems that underpin their advertising businesses.
The states’ case against Meta
The 29 states accuse Meta of pursuing young users’ attention through features that make Facebook and Instagram difficult to stop using.
Their lawsuit makes four central claims.
First, the states argue that Meta designed its products to keep children and teenagers scrolling, checking notifications, and returning to the platforms. They point to features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, likes, push alerts, recommendation algorithms, vanishing posts and filters that change look.
Second, the attorneys general say Meta misled the public by describing Facebook and Instagram as safe while allegedly concealing internal research and evidence about potential mental-health harms affecting young users.
Third, the states allege that Meta published reports and public statements that downplayed negative experiences on its platforms. They argue that the company’s safety claims were misleading because the data cited did not fully capture the experiences of children and teenagers.
Fourth, the coalition says Meta violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, by collecting and using the personal information of children under 13 without verifiable parental consent.
The case does not mean the allegations have been proven. The states must establish their claims in court, and Meta will have the opportunity to challenge their evidence, present its own witnesses and argue that its products are not the cause of the harms alleged.
But the lawsuit represents a major escalation from the public criticism Meta has faced for years. It moves the debate over teen social-media use from legislative hearings and internal company documents to a courtroom where the potential consequences could be substantial.
Who is leading the trial
The case involves 29 attorneys general from both Democratic and Republican states, an unusual coalition in a politically divided country.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman and New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin are leading the courtroom presentation.
Their cooperation reflects a rare area of bipartisan agreement: concern about the effect of social media on children and teenagers.
The states differ politically, but the lawsuit makes a common argument that Meta’s product choices contributed to a public-health problem. Their focus is not simply on objectionable content or individual bad actors. It is on the design of the platforms themselves.
The attorneys general argue that Meta did not merely host content created by users. They say the company developed systems intended to encourage repeated engagement, especially among younger users, because more engagement produces more advertising data and revenue.
Meta’s business model depends heavily on digital advertising. The longer people spend on Facebook and Instagram, the more opportunities the company has to show ads, collect signals about user preferences, and target marketing.
The states argue that this economic incentive led Meta to prioritize engagement over safety.
Meta’s defense
Meta has rejected the states’ accusations and says it has invested heavily in safety tools, parental controls, teen accounts, and content restrictions.
In a statement reported by Reuters, Meta said it denies that it intentionally designed its platforms to addict children or misled users about safety.
The company also argues that age verification is an industry-wide problem. Social-media services generally require users to meet minimum age thresholds, but many children can enter false birth dates when creating accounts. Stronger age checks may require identification documents or other sensitive personal information, raising separate privacy concerns.
Meta says it has added protections for young users in recent years, including more private default settings, restrictions on direct messages from unknown adults, content limits and parental supervision tools.
The company is likely to argue that it cannot be held responsible for every negative outcome experienced by a young person who uses social media. Mental health, family dynamics, school pressures, peer relationships, bullying, and other factors can all influence a teenager’s wellbeing.
Meta may also contend that the states’ proposed remedies would impose broad and unworkable restrictions on its products, potentially affecting adults as well as minors.
The company has warned that the penalties sought could reach $1.4 trillion, an amount close to its market value. State attorneys general have said that figure is inflated, and that a more realistic estimate would be about $200 billion.
Neither amount is guaranteed. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately determine Meta’s liability and any penalties if the states prevail. A jury is expected to issue an advisory verdict, but the judge will make the final legal findings.
Infinite scroll, likes and autoplay
The case could turn on familiar features that many users barely notice because they have become standard across social media.
Infinite scroll automatically loads new posts as users move down a feed. It eliminates a natural stopping point and can encourage people to continue using an app longer than they intended.
Likes are a quick form of social feedback. They might make users feel fulfilled when a post is getting attention, but they can also create pressure, comparison, anxiety, especially for youngsters who are anxious about popularity or beauty.
Autoplay starts playing new videos automatically without the user’s choice. Recommendation systems then use data on watching behaviors to offer more material, leading to a very personalized feed.
The states argue that these features work together to create compulsive use patterns. They compare the systems to mechanisms that reward people unpredictably, keeping them engaged because the next post, video, or notification may deliver social validation or entertainment.
Meta will likely argue that such features are typical techniques for delivering relevant material, and that consumers manage their use of the platforms. The company may also point out that many of the same design patterns exist on competing services.
The legal question is whether the features are merely engaging or whether they were designed and deployed in a way that constitutes deceptive or unfair conduct toward children.
That distinction could have broad consequences for the entire technology industry.
Children’s privacy claims
The states’ COPPA allegation adds a separate legal dimension to the case.
COPPA requires websites and online services to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13. The law applies to services directed at children and to general-audience platforms that have actual knowledge they are collecting data from children.
The states allege that Meta collected and used children’s data without obtaining the required consent.
Meta’s response is expected to focus on how the company identifies underage users and what steps it takes when it learns that an account belongs to a child. The platform’s age restrictions prohibit children under 13 from creating accounts, but enforcement can be difficult when users misstate their age.
The outcome could influence how social media companies handle age assurance. If the court concludes that platforms need to do more to detect underage users, corporations may have to use more aggressive age-verification methods.
That might protect minors. But it could also raise new privacy problems. Users may be asked to provide identity documents, facial scans, or other information to prove their age. Critics of strict verification rules warn that such systems can be inaccurate, exclusionary, or vulnerable to misuse.
The case therefore presents a policy dilemma: how to protect children’s privacy without creating a surveillance system for all users.
What the states want
The attorneys general are seeking more than money.
They want Meta to change core elements of Facebook and Instagram for younger users. Proposed remedies include removing visible like counts, ending infinite scroll, stopping autoplay, limiting or changing recommendation algorithms, restricting image filters, and preventing users from creating multiple accounts.
The states also want stronger parental verification and more effective mechanisms to keep children under 13 off the platforms.
If the court orders these changes, Meta could be required to redesign products not only in the United States but potentially on a global scale. Large technology companies often prefer one set of product rules rather than maintaining different versions for each country or state.
The impacts could spill over from Meta. Other social media platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat and other competitors use similar interaction elements. A ruling against Meta could encourage regulators, lawmakers, and plaintiffs to bring comparable cases against other companies.
The trial could also influence future legislation. Congress has considered several bills related to children’s online safety, data privacy and social media design, but has not passed a comprehensive national law. A major court ruling may increase pressure for federal standards.
The broader youth mental-health debate
The Meta case sits within a larger debate about whether social media harms young people’s mental health.
Researchers have found evidence that some types of online use can be associated with anxiety, depression, sleep disruption, body-image problems, cyberbullying, and exposure to harmful content. But the relationship is complex.
Social media can additionally provide support, community, information and creative outlets for young people who feel isolated or lack access to in-person resources.
The strongest concern is often not social media in general, but specific patterns of use: excessive time online, exposure to harmful content, lack of sleep, comparison with curated images, harassment and the use of platforms during periods of emotional vulnerability.
The states argue that Meta knew about these risks and chose not to change its products sufficiently. Meta argues that the evidence does not prove its features caused individual harm and that it has introduced meaningful safety measures.
The trial presumably will include internal papers, expert witness, data analysis and testimony from corporate personnel. The evidence could shape public understanding of how Meta made decisions about youth engagement and safety.
What happens next
The Oakland trial is expected to last about six weeks. The four lead states will present evidence on behalf of the wider coalition, while Meta will mount its defense.
The jury’s role is advisory. Judge Gonzalez Rogers will decide Meta’s liability and the scope of any penalties or product changes.
A decision against Meta could lead to appeals, meaning the legal process may continue long after the trial ends. But even before a final ruling, the case is likely to affect the company’s strategy.
Meta may face pressure from investors, advertisers, parents, and lawmakers to make changes voluntarily. The company already has an incentive to show that it takes teen safety seriously, especially as governments around the world consider stricter regulation.
For the 29 states, the case is an attempt to establish that platform design is not neutral. They argue that when a company builds systems to maximize attention, it can be held accountable for foreseeable harm to children.
For Meta, the case is a fight over whether courts should regulate the basic architecture of social media.
The outcome could determine not only how Facebook and Instagram work for teenagers, but also how the technology industry defines responsibility in an era when engagement is often the product, and children are among its most valuable users.