Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, is facing one of the most consequential tech trials of the decade in a federal courtroom in Oakland, California, where a coalition of U.S. states alleges the company deliberately built “addictive” platforms for children and concealed evidence that its products harm young users’ mental health
The trial, expected to last six to eight weeks, pits California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey—acting as lead plaintiffs for a group of 29 state attorneys general—against Meta in a case that legal experts say is the biggest test yet of how far the law can reach into social media design and youth safety.
States Allege Meta Designed ‘Addiction Machines’ for Teens
At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that Meta intentionally engineered Instagram and Facebook to keep young users compulsively engaged, prioritising “teen time spent” and growth metrics over child safety. Opening statements from California’s deputy attorney general described Meta’s business model as aiming to “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public.”
The 233‑page complaint filed in October 2023 alleges that Meta:
-
Designed and deployed features such as infinite scroll, autoplay video, disappearing content (Stories), beauty filters and algorithm‑driven feeds, fully aware that these mechanisms encourage compulsive use among teens.
-
Covered up internal research indicating that Instagram use was linked to anxiety, depression and body‑image issues in young people, while publicly downplaying or contradicting those findings.
-
Collected data from children under 13 without verifiable parental consent, in violation of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and state privacy laws.
The states are seeking billions of dollars in civil penalties and sweeping injunctive relief, including orders to remove known under‑13 accounts, delete data collected from children, strip out “addictive” design features, and impose time‑of‑day limits to restrict school‑time and night‑time use.
A Bellwether in a Much Larger Social Media Addiction MDL
The Oakland case is part of a broader multidistrict litigation (MDL) comprising roughly 3,000 lawsuits over social media addiction and harms, consolidated before a single federal judge to coordinate discovery and test common legal issues. Stanford Law professor Nora Freeman Engstrom notes that this trial functions as a bellwether—a test case whose outcome will influence settlement expectations and strategy across thousands of related claims.
Unlike many of the private suits in the MDL, which target multiple platforms, the current trial focuses solely on Meta and two bodies of law: state consumer‑protection statutes and COPPA. A resounding win for the states could trigger a broader reckoning over social media safeguards and risk disclosures; a Meta victory might sap momentum from other plaintiffs and prompt a strategic recalibration.
Meta has warned investors that the case could carry “astronomical” consequences, telling CNBC it faces up to $1.2 trillion in potential damages and could be forced to remove key features that underpin its advertising‑driven business model.
Mosseri Testifies on ‘Take a Break’ and Low Teen Uptake
On August 25, Instagram chief Adam Mosseri became the first senior Meta executive to take the stand, testifying about the company’s efforts to add safety features for younger users and how widely they were used.
Under questioning from attorneys for the states, Mosseri discussed “Take a Break,” a feature introduced in 2021 that displays a pop‑up suggesting teens pause their use after spending a fixed amount of time in the app. An internal Meta document presented in court showed that only about 1.8% of teen users turned the feature on at one point, a figure Mosseri acknowledged was “not nearly as much as we hoped.”
Mosseri confirmed that:
-
Meta did not disclose publicly that teen uptake of Take a Break remained in the low single digits—around 1–2% of accounts—before it was later made a default setting.
-
There was no way for parents to know, at the time, how few teens were actually using the voluntary tool.
In late 2024, Meta introduced Teen Accounts on Instagram, turning Take a Break and certain content filters on by default for users under 16 and adding more structured parental controls. Mosseri argued that “most teens didn’t want” the prompts initially but said the company decided to push forward with default protections anyway.
Whistleblower Says ‘Profits Won’ Over Child Safety
Earlier in the trial, former Meta safety engineer Arturo Béjar testified as the states’ first witness, describing an internal culture that he says treated child safety concerns as secondary to growth and engagement.
Béjar told jurors that Meta embraced a “move fast and break things” mantra and adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to under‑13 users on its platforms, avoiding robust checks on whether children were accessing Instagram and Facebook. He said safety tools for teens and younger users did not work as advertised and that internal data showed exposure to graphic and harmful content was far more widespread than Meta publicly acknowledged.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected Meta’s bid to block Béjar’s testimony on procedural grounds, calling the attempt a long shot and emphasising the importance of whistleblower evidence in assessing what the company knew and how it responded.
Meta’s Defence: ‘Addiction’ Is Not a Recognised Condition
Meta has denied the accusations, insisting that it has long invested in tools and policies meant to help teens manage their time and experience online. The company argues that:
-
Many of the allegedly deceptive statements were accurate when made, qualified, or represent opinions rather than hard claims.
-
It cannot have lied about the risks of “social media addiction” because, in its view, such addiction is not a medically recognised condition, making the term inherently contested.
-
Teen mental health is “profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app,” and Meta’s record shows a “longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”
In its legal strategy, Meta also invokes Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liability for user‑generated content. Judge Gonzalez Rogers has already ruled that Section 230 does not grant blanket immunity in this context, and the states have framed their case around Meta’s own design choices, statements and data practices, rather than the content posted by third parties.
The Ninth Circuit, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, are ultimately expected to weigh in on how far Section 230 limits state‑level enforcement actions like this one.
Could the Meta Trial Be ‘Big Tobacco 2.0’?
Observers have drawn parallels between the Meta case and earlier government campaigns against Big Tobacco and later the opioid industry, noting the combination of state attorneys general, internal documents, and allegations that a powerful corporation sold an addictive product to vulnerable populations while obscuring its risks.
Engstrom cautions that social media presents a more complex legal and causal story than cigarettes: it involves speech, implicates Section 230, and is linked to diffuse harms like anxiety and depression rather than a single diagnosable disease. Still, she notes that unlike in the 1990s tobacco suits, today’s attorneys general are working from a tested playbook developed through decades of mass‑tort experience.
Meanwhile, separate cases—including a Los Angeles jury verdict awarding damages to a young woman for social media addiction, and a New Mexico ruling finding Meta liable for exposing children to sexual content—have already signaled that courts are willing to entertain claims that platform design can constitute a form of negligence or intentional harm.
What’s at Stake for Social Media Design
Beyond Meta’s financial exposure, the states are explicitly asking the court to force changes that would strip out or heavily modify core engagement features: infinite scroll, autoplaying videos, disappearing content, beauty filters, and algorithm‑dominated feeds, among others. California’s attorney general has suggested that similar actions could follow against other platforms, making the Oakland trial a potential blueprint for broader regulation.
Jurors in the Meta case will issue an advisory verdict, but U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately decide Meta’s liability and any penalties or injunctive orders. Whatever the outcome, the proceedings are already forcing a public reckoning over how social media platforms are designed for teenagers—and over where the line should be drawn between profitable engagement and harmful addiction.
