Meta is facing the most pressing legal issue yet, as it goes to trial in California on charges Facebook and Instagram were purposefully engineered to harm children and teenagers. That case, filed by attorneys general from 29 US states, has been watched closely because its outcome could affect thousands of other lawsuits complaining social media companies have created problems for young people.
The trial is taking place in federal court in Oakland, California. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are the four states leading the case, and the larger coalition of 29 states is also in federal court. Opening statements are scheduled for August 18, and the proceedings are expected to last several weeks.
At the heart of the case is whether Meta knowingly designed its platforms to keep young users engaged for as long as possible, and not fully address the risks of excessive social media use. Meta used features that could encourage compulsive use and misled the public about the potential effects of its platforms on children and teenagers, state attorneys general allege.
The states also say Meta is violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which cautions against the collection of personal information from children under 13 without parental consent. A federal judge previously rejected Meta's attempt to have the case dismissed and agreed that the claims involving parental consent could proceed.
What the States Are Alleging
The lawsuit claims Meta’s business model put engagement and profit ahead of the well-being of kids. State officials say such features like recommendation systems and other engagement-focused tools can encourage children to spend too much time on Instagram and Facebook.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has called the case a way to hold Meta accountable for creating products that have been found to cause mental and physical harm to young people. Meta knew about the risks of the products it has produced, the lawsuit claims, and marketed them to younger audiences.
The allegations come as the United States grapples with the issue of social media use and youth mental health. As more and more people say platform design causes anxiety, depression, compulsive behaviour and disruption to daily lives, authorities, parents and researchers have come to question the very idea of platform design in general.
The lawsuit is also happening in the context of previous cases that have been so bad for Meta. In March a California jury found Meta and YouTube liable in a case brought by a young woman who said social media use starting as a child contributed to her mental health issues. The jury awarded $6 million in damages, the firms have denied any liability and are still exercising legal options in the case.
A New Mexico case also resulted in an overwhelming judgment against Meta, and that will build pressure on the company in the courts across the country as similar lawsuits are filed.
The states are seeking potentially enormous financial penalties. Meta has said the states’ calculations could result in penalties of as much as $1.4 trillion if they were to prevail, a figure that far exceeds the company’s market value at the time it was disclosed. Legal experts have warned such a large penalty is unlikely to be imposed in practice, but the figure illustrates the scale of the legal exposure Meta thinks it faces.
Meta Rejects the Allegations
Meta has denied that its platforms were intentionally designed to harm children and has pointed to measures it has introduced to enhance protections for younger users. The company says it has invested in parental controls, age-related restrictions and other safety tools intended to make its platforms safer for teenagers.
Meta also disputes the states’ broader interpretation of its platform design and the link between its products and youth mental health problems. The company has maintained that it shouldn’t be held responsible for users’ speech and the lawsuits have unfairly attacked the technology industry’s role in complex social problems.
The process could also influence how courts regard technology companies’ responsibilities when their products are used extensively by minors. If the states succeed, Meta could face financial penalties as well as pressure to make significant changes to how its platforms operate.
The changes state officials wish to see are restrictions on children’s access, infinite scrolling, removal of algorithms trained on children’s data and how content is recommended to younger users. Such measures could potentially impact Meta but also to the extent that Meta and other social media companies must consider legal and regulatory oversight and regulation.
An unusual feature of the current proceedings is the jury’s role. A judge has empaneled an advisory jury instead of a binding jury. The panel will consider evidence and make its judgment, but the judge will make the ultimate decision.
And the case is so much more than another lawsuit against a technology company. It is part of a larger debate over how social media should be designed, regulated and used by children. With parents, schools, lawmakers and technology companies all under pressure over youth online safety, California’s case could be a turning point.
For Meta, the stakes are especially high. A decision against Meta could have a lot of financial and operational impact and will help to strengthen thousands of others. States that want more accountability from technology companies would like to use the trial to determine if existing consumer protection and privacy laws are applicable to platform design.
The outcome would ultimately shape the future of social media for younger users, determining how far technology companies can go in designing platforms that maximise engagement and where the legal responsibility begins when those design choices are alleged to cause harm.
