Meta faced one of the most significant legal challenges in its history on Tuesday as attorneys representing 29 US states accused the technology giant of deliberately attracting children and teenagers to Facebook and Instagram while failing to adequately protect them.
The trial, taking place in Oakland, California, is expected to last about six weeks. At its center are allegations that Meta violated federal and state laws protecting children’s privacy and knowingly operated platforms that could negatively affect young people’s mental health.
The states are seeking billions of dollars in penalties and are also demanding changes to how Facebook and Instagram operate, including restrictions on features such as public “like” counts and infinite scrolling.
California says Meta knew millions of children were using Instagram
During opening arguments, California attorney Megan O’Neill told jurors that Meta knew millions of 11- and 12-year-olds were using Instagram but did little to prevent them from accessing the platform.
Meta strongly disputed that characterization.
The company’s lead trial lawyer, Paul Schmidt, told the jury that Meta’s internal figures identified just over 100,000 users in that age group, rather than the millions alleged by the state.
The conflicting figures immediately highlighted one of the central battles expected to dominate the proceedings: whether Meta knowingly tolerated widespread underage use of its services or faced practical and legal obstacles to identifying children.
Meta challenges claims of social media addiction
Meta’s defense also rejected the states’ argument that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to make young users addicted to the platforms.
Schmidt argued that there is no established scientific consensus that social media addiction exists in the way the states describe it.
He acknowledged that Meta recognizes some people can struggle with their social media use and said the company has developed tools intended to help users manage that behavior.
But Schmidt pointed to previous comments from Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri arguing that the platforms were not created to be addictive.
Internal research becomes key evidence
The states’ case relies heavily on millions of documents produced during the litigation, including internal research, employee communications and chat messages involving senior Meta executives.
O’Neill highlighted one internal research finding that said one in five teenagers reported feeling worse after using Instagram.
The finding was presented as evidence that Meta was aware of potential harm associated with its products.
Another internal document cited by California stated that features designed to increase the amount of time users spend on the platforms could conflict with their well-being and interfere with their ability to focus on activities considered valuable.
Meta argues teenagers also reported positive experiences
Schmidt sought to provide jurors with a broader interpretation of the company’s research.
Addressing the internal finding about teenagers feeling worse after using Instagram, he acknowledged that the figure sounded concerning but noted that the same research showed 41% of teens said Instagram made them feel better, while another 41% said it had no effect.
Meta’s lawyers argued that the states were emphasizing negative experiences while failing to account for the many teenagers who reported neutral or positive interactions with the platforms.
Privacy rules complicate age verification, Meta says
Another major point of contention is whether Meta could have done more to prevent children under 13 from using its services.
The states argue that Meta failed to adequately keep underage users off Facebook and Instagram.
Schmidt countered that determining the age of every user would require collecting and retaining additional personal information, potentially creating the very privacy concerns that Meta is accused of violating.
That argument is likely to become an important issue as the trial examines the balance between protecting children and limiting the collection of sensitive information.
California alleges a gap between public statements and internal findings
O’Neill argued that Meta’s public messaging about child safety did not reflect what the company’s own research was showing internally.
She pointed to internal documents suggesting that Meta was aware of the risks associated with features designed to maximize engagement while continuing to promote its platforms to young users.
According to O’Neill, the evidence will demonstrate a substantial difference between what Meta told the public about the safety of its services and what employees and internal researchers were reporting.
States seek sweeping changes to Facebook and Instagram
The lawsuit goes beyond financial penalties.
The 29 states are seeking significant changes to Facebook and Instagram, potentially forcing Meta to modify some of the design features that have helped drive user engagement.
Among the proposed changes are restrictions involving “like” counts and infinite scrolling, features critics argue can encourage users to remain on the platforms for longer periods.
The states contend that the case is ultimately about whether Meta placed business interests ahead of the welfare and privacy of children.
Six-week trial could reshape Meta’s platforms
The proceedings are expected to expose jurors to extensive internal research, corporate communications and evidence concerning how Meta developed and managed Facebook and Instagram.
For the states, the goal is to establish that Meta knew its platforms could harm young users while continuing to pursue them as an important audience.
Meta, meanwhile, is expected to argue that the states are overstating the evidence, ignoring positive experiences reported by teenagers and applying contested theories about social media addiction.
The outcome could have consequences extending beyond financial penalties, potentially forcing one of the world’s largest social media companies to make significant changes to the way its platforms operate around children and teenagers.
