A landmark federal trial over children’s safety on social media began on 18 August 2026 in Oakland, California, as a bipartisan coalition of 29 state attorneys general launched their case against Meta Platforms, alleging that the company deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to addict children and teenagers, concealed the mental‑health harms, and violated federal privacy rules.
The trial, before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California, is being led by lawyers representing California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, with the other states backing the unified case filed in 2023. Opening statements laid out claims that Meta’s business model is built on “hooking” young users, holding their attention, harvesting their data and hiding the truth about the risks.
States’ Core Allegations: Addictive Design and Hidden Harms
The states’ case rests on two main legal pillars: alleged violations of state consumer‑protection laws and breaches of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
In her opening statement, California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill told the eight‑member advisory jury that Meta’s operations can be summed up in four words: “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public.” She said this model was “especially bad for kids,” arguing that Meta knew young people’s brains are highly sensitive to social feedback and still developing impulse control, yet designed features to exploit those traits.
According to the states, Meta intentionally built and promoted addictive design features on Facebook and Instagram, including:
-
Infinite scroll and autoplay video, which keep users continuously engaged without clear stopping points.
-
Ephemeral content such as Instagram Stories, encouraging constant checking.
-
“Like” counts and engagement‑optimized algorithms that amplify content most likely to hold attention.
-
Beauty filters and appearance‑focused tools that can intensify body‑image pressures among teens.
The states allege these features were not accidental by‑products but the result of deliberate product choices aimed at maximizing time spent on the platforms and the data collected from young users.
Mental‑Health Crisis and Whistleblower Testimony
The attorneys general argue that Meta’s practices have helped fuel a youth mental‑health crisis, contributing to rising rates of anxiety, depression, self‑harm and, in some cases, suicide among adolescents. They contend that internal research and external studies showed the platforms could harm young people, but Meta continued to prioritize engagement and revenue.
Early in the states’ case, they called Arturo Béjar, a former Facebook engineering director and whistleblower, who has previously alleged that Meta prioritized rapid product launches over user safety. In pretrial rulings, Judge Gonzalez Rogers allowed the states to use Béjar as a witness and to present select evidence at opening statements, rejecting Meta’s attempt to block his testimony over deleted Signal chats, which the judge characterized as a “Hail Mary” by the defense.
According to reporting from the BBC’s live coverage, Béjar told the court that the number of teens exposed to graphic and harmful content was at least 100 times higher than Meta had publicly reported, underscoring the states’ claim that the company downplayed risks.
COPPA Claims: Data Collection from Children Under 13
Alongside addiction allegations, the states assert that Meta violated COPPA by collecting personal data from children under 13 without obtaining proper parental consent. They argue that the company allowed under‑age users to create accounts and then harvested information about their behavior, interests and interactions to fuel targeted advertising and algorithmic recommendations.
In court filings, the attorneys general have asked for permanent, nationwide injunctive relief if COPPA violations are proven, including orders that Meta:
-
Delete all personal data collected from children under 13.
-
Remove or disable algorithms and models trained using that data.
-
Implement stronger age‑verification and parental‑consent mechanisms going forward.
Meta has denied the allegations, with a company spokesperson telling reporters that the states’ claims are “limited and unsubstantiated” and that the financial demands are “vastly disproportionate.” The spokesperson added that Meta stands by its record of creating “strong protections for teens” and pointed to industry‑wide challenges around age verification.
Stakes for Meta: Billions in Penalties and Product Changes
The financial and operational stakes for Meta are enormous. The states are seeking billions of dollars in penalties, with some estimates suggesting potential fines could theoretically reach as high as $1.4 trillion if violations are found across all 29 states and over multiple years. Even if the final figure is far lower, a large judgment could rank among the biggest ever imposed on a U.S. tech company in a consumer‑protection case.
Beyond money, the states are asking the court to order nationwide changes to Facebook and Instagram, including the removal or modification of specific features deemed addictive or harmful to minors. Potential remedies discussed in filings include:
-
Disabling or redesigning infinite scroll and autoplay for younger users.
-
Limiting or removing public “like” counts and other engagement metrics for minors.
-
Restricting beauty filters and appearance‑focused tools for under‑18 accounts.
-
Overhauling engagement‑optimized recommendation algorithms to reduce compulsive use.
Such changes, if ordered, could reshape how hundreds of millions of users, not just in the U.S., experience Meta’s platforms.
Broader Context: Multiple Child‑Safety Cases Against Meta
This trial is one of several major legal challenges Meta faces over child safety and youth mental health. In recent years, the company has confronted:
-
A New Mexico case in which a judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a teen mental‑health fund and implement youth‑safety changes after finding the company contributed to a public nuisance.
-
Numerous investigations and lawsuits from other states, school districts and individual plaintiffs alleging similar patterns of addictive design and privacy violations.
Together, these cases reflect growing regulatory and public pressure on social media companies to take more responsibility for how their products affect young users, even as the industry argues that many harms are multifactorial and not solely caused by any single platform.
Meta’s Defence: Industry‑Wide Issues and Strong Protections
In its defence, Meta contends that the states are overstating the link between its platforms and youth mental‑health problems and that many of the features at issue are industry‑standard and used by other apps and services. The company argues that it has introduced a range of teen safety tools, including parental supervision dashboards, time‑limit features, and content controls, and that it actively removes harmful material and collaborates with child‑safety organizations.
Meta also highlights the difficulty of age verification online, noting that COPPA compliance across a global user base is complex and that no single company can fully solve the problem of under‑age users misrepresenting their age.
What the Trial Could Mean for Social Media Regulation
Legal analysts describe the Oakland trial as a pivotal test of whether U.S. courts will treat social media platforms’ design choices as actionable consumer‑protection and privacy violations, rather than merely business decisions shielded by Section 230 and other legal doctrines.
If the states prevail, the case could:
-
Set a precedent for holding platforms accountable for addictive design and data practices targeting minors.
-
Encourage other states and regulators to pursue similar claims, potentially leading to nationwide standards for youth safety on social media.
-
Force Meta and its rivals to rethink core product features that drive engagement but may also drive compulsive use among young people.
If Meta prevails, it could reinforce the view that mental‑health harms are too diffuse to pin on any single company and that broad product changes should come from legislation, not litigation.
As opening statements gave way to witness testimony, the trial promised weeks of detailed evidence on internal research, product decisions and the lived experiences of families who say their children were harmed. Whatever the outcome, the case is poised to be one of the most consequential technology liability trials in U.S. history, with implications for how social media is built, regulated and used by the next generation.
