29 states accuse the technology giant of exploiting young users, misleading families about safety and improperly collecting children’s data; Meta strongly denies wrongdoing

OAKLAND, Calif. — Meta Platforms is facing one of the most consequential legal challenges in the history of social media as a landmark federal trial examines allegations that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to keep children and teenagers engaged for longer periods while the company downplayed potential risks to their health and safety.

Opening statements began Tuesday in federal court in Oakland, California, in litigation involving a bipartisan coalition of 29 U.S. states. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are leading key consumer-protection claims accusing Meta of engineering features intended to encourage compulsive use among young people and misleading parents and consumers about the safety of its platforms.

The case also includes allegations from all 29 states that Meta improperly collected and used personal information belonging to children in violation of federal children’s privacy law.

California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill, presenting the states’ opening case, portrayed Meta’s business model as one built around maximizing engagement and gathering user data.

She told jurors that prosecutors intend to present internal Meta research and communications they say demonstrate that the company studied the psychological vulnerabilities of young users and understood that children were especially responsive to rewards, social feedback and engagement-driven features.

Among the evidence highlighted during opening statements was an internal study carrying the title “The Young Ones Are the Best Ones.” Prosecutors say the document will help demonstrate Meta’s interest in attracting users at younger ages because those users could remain on its platforms longer.

The allegations remain claims being tested in court, and Meta strongly denies that it intentionally harmed or deceived young users.

States accuse Meta of designing for addiction

The four lead states contend that Facebook and Instagram incorporated design features that encouraged young users to return repeatedly and remain on the platforms for extended periods.

The states argue that those systems contributed to problems including anxiety, depression and other harms affecting some young users. They also accuse Meta of publicly minimizing risks while internally examining the effects of its products on children and teenagers.

O’Neill told jurors that Meta researched how children’s developing brains respond to online stimulation and tracked interactions occurring on its applications.

According to Reuters, she also presented an internal communication referring to increasing “teen time spent” as a company objective. Prosecutors further cited internal descriptions comparing Instagram to a drug, evidence they argue shows Meta employees understood the powerful engagement effects of the platform.

Meta disputes the states’ interpretation of those records and argues that isolated internal statements do not establish that the company deliberately designed its services to addict children.

Children’s privacy at center of case

The lawsuit is not limited to mental-health and platform-design allegations.

A major portion of the case concerns the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, the federal law governing the collection of personal information from children under 13.

COPPA requires covered online services to provide notice to parents and obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using or disclosing certain personal information from children under 13 when the law applies.

The states allege Meta knew that children younger than 13 were using Facebook and Instagram and nonetheless collected information from some of those users without legally sufficient parental permission.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said a federal judge ruled before trial that Meta’s method of obtaining parental consent was insufficient to satisfy COPPA for purposes addressed in the pretrial proceedings, while also denying Meta’s attempt to end the broader case at summary judgment.

Meta contests the broader allegations and has argued that age verification is an industry-wide challenge rather than evidence that it intentionally violated children’s privacy.

Zuckerberg and Mosseri expected to testify

The trial is expected to last roughly six weeks, and some of Meta’s most senior executives are expected to appear.

Meta co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri are among the anticipated witnesses.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is overseeing the case.

Unlike a conventional jury trial in which jurors issue the final liability verdict, the eight-member jury in this proceeding is expected to provide an advisory verdict. Judge Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately determine Meta’s liability and, if the company is found responsible, could impose civil penalties and order changes to the operation of Facebook and Instagram.

That structure gives the case potentially far-reaching consequences beyond financial damages.

States seek changes to Facebook and Instagram

California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are seeking not only monetary penalties but also significant changes to how Meta’s platforms operate.

Among the remedies discussed are stronger age restrictions and the elimination or modification of infinite scroll, the design feature that continuously delivers new content as a person moves through a feed.

The states argue that such features encourage prolonged use and are particularly problematic for children whose impulse-control systems are still developing.

O’Neill emphasized that the lawsuit is not intended to shut down Meta or social media generally. The states acknowledge that social media can provide benefits, but argue that companies should not obtain those benefits through designs that allegedly exploit children.

A ruling requiring structural changes could influence not only Meta but the wider technology industry, as TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat and other major platforms face related litigation over the effects of social-media products on young people.

Could penalties reach hundreds of billions?

The financial stakes are potentially enormous, although the ultimate amount remains highly uncertain.

Meta has argued in court filings that applying the states’ theories across millions of alleged violations could theoretically expose the company to penalties of as much as $1.4 trillion.

That figure should not be confused with a formal $1.4 trillion demand from the attorneys general.

The states have not publicly specified a final damages figure. Reuters reported that attorneys general indicated during a recent hearing that potential penalties could instead be closer to $200 billion.

The Associated Press also noted that legal experts consider a penalty approaching the theoretical $1.4 trillion maximum unlikely and that the court would have substantial discretion in determining any eventual financial sanction.

Even a substantially smaller judgment, however, could rank among the most significant financial penalties ever imposed on a major technology company.

Meta: We have worked for years to protect teenagers

Meta says the states are presenting a distorted picture of the company’s record.

The company says it has invested heavily in teen safety and has repeatedly introduced new protections on Instagram, Facebook and Messenger.

In recent years, Meta has introduced Teen Accounts, which automatically place younger users into more restrictive settings. The company says those protections limit who can contact teenagers, restrict the kinds of content they can see and require parental approval for some younger teens who want to weaken the default safeguards.

Meta has continued expanding those controls. In 2026, the company announced broader 13+ content settings, age-detection technology and additional parental notifications across Instagram, Facebook and Messenger.

Meta says those measures demonstrate an ongoing commitment to protecting young users rather than an effort to exploit them.

The company has said that the attorneys general have failed to prove that residents were deceived or directly harmed by the practices identified in the lawsuit.

Meta has also criticized the potential financial claims as excessive and says the states are attempting to punish the company for complicated challenges, such as accurately determining users’ ages, that affect the entire social-media industry.

Trial follows years of scrutiny

The current dispute dates to a multistate investigation that accelerated after former Facebook employee and whistleblower Frances Haugen disclosed internal company documents and testified before the U.S. Senate in 2021.

Haugen alleged that Meta knew more about potential harms affecting young users than it publicly acknowledged and argued that the company often prioritized growth and engagement over safety. Meta disputed many of her conclusions.

The states filed their federal lawsuit in 2023.

The litigation has since become part of a much broader legal reckoning over social media, with technology companies facing thousands of claims brought by states, municipalities, school districts, parents and individuals.

Meta has already suffered setbacks in other youth-safety litigation. Earlier this month, a New Mexico judge ordered the company to pay $567 million and required changes to its platforms in a separate case. Meta disputes that ruling and is pursuing an appeal.

A trial that could reshape social media

The Oakland case may ultimately become important for reasons extending far beyond Meta’s financial exposure.

For years, the central debate surrounding social media and children has focused on parental responsibility, corporate responsibility, freedom of expression, privacy, technology design and the difficulty of determining exactly how online behavior affects mental health.

This trial moves many of those arguments from congressional hearings and public debate into a federal courtroom.

The states will have to prove their allegations with evidence, while Meta will have the opportunity to demonstrate that its practices complied with the law and that its safety measures contradict claims that it deliberately endangered children.

No final determination has been made.

But if Judge Gonzalez Rogers ultimately finds Meta liable and orders substantial changes to features such as age controls or infinite scrolling, the decision could establish an important legal precedent for how technology companies design products for minors.

For parents, regulators and the technology industry, the central question is therefore larger than whether Meta must pay a multibillion-dollar penalty.

It is whether the law can — and should — place enforceable limits on how social-media companies compete for the attention, personal information and time of children.