Meta is heading into one of its most consequential legal battles yet as four states take the social media giant to trial over allegations that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to keep children hooked, while the company concealed risks to their mental health.
The trial begins Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, amid a wave of lawsuits challenging how social media companies design and market their platforms to young people.
For Meta, the financial stakes could be enormous. The Facebook and Instagram parent company, valued at roughly $1.4 trillion, is already defending itself against thousands of lawsuits alleging its products have harmed children and teenagers.
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey sued Meta in 2023, accusing the company of designing algorithms and other features to encourage compulsive use among young people. The states also allege Meta misled the public about the effects its platforms can have on children and violated the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA.
The federal law restricts companies from collecting personal information from children under 13 without parental consent.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, accused Meta ahead of the trial of “exploiting our most vulnerable residents to boost corporate profits.”
The lawsuit also alleges Meta violated California laws prohibiting false advertising and unfair competition.
Bipartisan challenge targets Meta
The case has brought together attorneys general from both parties.
Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, a Republican, has compared the legal battle to the lawsuits brought against tobacco companies in the 1990s. Research has associated heavy social media use among young people with higher rates of depression and anxiety, as well as behavioral health concerns including eating disorders. In one recent survey, more than a third of teenagers reported using social media “almost constantly.”
“This week, we’re in court with the largest consumer protection lawsuit in American history,” Coleman said in a news release. “We’ll show a jury that Meta concealed what it knew about the harm its products cause young people because looking away was more profitable.”
Meta has rejected the states’ characterization of its conduct. A spokesperson said that their claims are limited while the financial penalties they are seeking are “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 said. “We stand by our record of creating strong protections for teens, and look forward to making our case in court.”
At the center of the dispute is a fundamental question about how social media platforms are built. Companies have developed features designed to capture users’ attention and keep them engaged, while arguing that those same platforms allow people to connect in ways that were technologically impossible only a generation ago.
The states contend that when those techniques are applied to children, they can cross the line from engagement into exploitation.
Meta faces a wave of litigation
The four-state lawsuit is part of a much broader effort to hold social media companies responsible for their effects on children's wellbeing.
Meta, like other social media companies, has First Amendment rights and protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But those defenses have not prevented a growing number of cases from advancing in court.
Concerns about Meta's treatment of young users intensified in 2021, when The Wall Street Journal published an investigation based on internal company documents provided by a whistleblower. The documents indicated Meta had conducted research showing that its platforms could negatively affect some teenagers while the company publicly played down those risks.
The issue erupted again during a contentious congressional hearing in 2024, when Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg addressed parents who said their children had been harmed — and, in some cases, had died by suicide — after using social media.
“I’m sorry for everything you’ve all gone through,” Zuckerberg told the families. “It’s terrible. No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered.”
Recent verdicts raise the pressure
The California trial follows several significant courtroom setbacks for Meta.
In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google negligent for designing features that kept children engaged despite known mental health risks. Jurors awarded $6 million in damages to a young woman who said she had used social media compulsively as a child and suffered mental anguish.
The jury concluded the companies bore responsibility for her injuries.
Meta suffered another major legal setback this month in New Mexico, where a judge ordered the company to pay $567 million after a jury found it failed to adequately protect young people from child sexual exploitation on its platforms.
That amount came on top of $375 million in civil penalties imposed by a jury in March. The verdict made New Mexico the first state to prevail against a major technology company in a case centered on its effects on children.
“The jury’s verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta’s choice to put profits over kids’ safety,” New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said in a media release. “Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees and lied to the public about what they knew. Today the jury joined families, educators and child safety experts in saying enough is enough.”
Meta disputes the New Mexico allegations and has said it will appeal. Meta and Google have also appealed the Los Angeles verdict.
Meanwhile, school districts across the country have brought their own lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies, alleging the platforms failed to adequately warn children about potential risks to their wellbeing.
