Meta Faces Trial Over Alleged Harm to Children on Social Media Platforms

Meta Platforms Inc. deliberately targeted children on Facebook and Instagram with technology designed to encourage compulsive use and increase advertising revenue, a lawyer representing the California attorney general’s office told a jury at the opening of a landmark trial.

 

In her opening statement in federal court in Oakland, California, the lawyer said the 29 states suing Meta are seeking to hold the company accountable for allegedly misleading children and their parents about safety risks and privacy concerns.

 

The states allege that Meta prioritised engagement and advertising revenue over the wellbeing of young users by designing features intended to keep them on its platforms for longer periods. The case is among the most significant legal challenges yet to the way social media companies design their products for children and teenagers.

 

The lawyer argued that Meta’s business model was centred on attracting users, keeping them engaged for as long as possible, collecting their data and concealing the risks associated with its platforms. She also said young users were particularly valuable because they were more likely to become long-term users.

 

Meta has denied the states’ allegations and accused the attorneys general of seeking unreasonable changes to its platform design and an “outlandish payout”.

 

A lawyer representing Meta told jurors that the company takes its responsibility to protect young users seriously and has introduced safety tools while supporting research into teen mental health.

 

“I don’t think there will be a dispute that these tools help individual people and that Meta continually worked to improve them,” he said in his opening statement.

 

Consumer Protection

 

The trial is significant because it centres on alleged violations of state consumer protection laws and federal privacy legislation.

 

The attorneys general leading the case from California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey allege under their respective state laws that Meta knowingly designed features that encouraged compulsive and prolonged use of its platforms by young people, while simultaneously misleading consumers about safety features on its services.

 

The broader bipartisan group of 29 states accuses the company of collecting data from users under the age of 13 without proper parental consent, in violation of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

 

The federal case was filed in 2023 and involves allegations that Meta knew children were using its platforms despite its stated minimum age of 13 and failed to take adequate steps to prevent their access. The four states leading the consumer protection claims are pursuing those allegations alongside the federal privacy claims.

 

The consumer protection claims carry potential fines of up to $20,000 per violation, which could mount rapidly when multiplied across millions of young Instagram and Facebook users.

 

$1.4 Trillion

 

According to Meta’s own calculations, losing the trial could expose the company to penalties of as much as $1.4 trillion – an amount close to its market capitalisation and an extraordinary figure in consumer protection litigation.

 

Meta disclosed the potential figure in a court filing, arguing that the states’ calculation was unsupported by the evidence. The states have indicated that their calculations are based on the number of alleged violations and the penalties available under the relevant state laws.

 

The attorneys general have not publicly disclosed a final figure they are seeking. However, the states have previously indicated that they were calculating penalties by multiplying the number of violations by the relevant statutory fines.

 

Even a substantially lower amount would rank among the largest litigation payouts ever. The potential penalties have therefore become a central feature of the case, although the court will ultimately determine whether any penalties are warranted and, if so, their amount.

 

Meta has argued that a penalty approaching $1.4 trillion would have no precedent in consumer protection enforcement.

 

One challenge for the states, as well as other litigants pursuing social media companies, has been navigating Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The 1996 federal law generally shields technology companies from liability for third-party content posted on their platforms.

 

Platform Design

 

The states have stressed that the case is not primarily about individual pieces of content posted on Instagram and Facebook, but about the design and operation of the platforms themselves.

 

The plaintiffs argue that features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, algorithmic recommendations, push notifications and engagement metrics were designed to maximise the amount of time users spend on the services.

 

The states say those features are particularly concerning when used by children and teenagers, who may be more vulnerable to compulsive behaviour and other negative effects associated with prolonged social media use.

 

The lawyer for California told jurors that the states were not seeking to hold Meta responsible for harmful content posted by third parties. Instead, the focus was on Meta’s own conduct, including what it said and did not say, the decisions it made and the way it designed its platforms.

 

Meta, however, is expected to argue that it has progressively strengthened its safety measures and that the evidence does not establish that its products were deliberately designed to harm young users.

 

The company has also pointed to tools introduced to give teenagers greater control over their social media use and to provide parents with greater oversight.

 

Meta has argued that the broader issue of young people’s social media use cannot be placed solely on one company. Its lawyers have also questioned why app stores and other technology companies involved in the digital ecosystem should not share responsibility for restricting access by children under 13.

 

Privacy and Age Restrictions

 

A central issue in the case is whether Meta adequately protected children under the age of 13 from its platforms and whether it complied with federal privacy requirements.

 

Facebook and Instagram have officially required users to be at least 13 years old for years. However, the states allege that Meta knew significant numbers of younger children were using its services and failed to take adequate action.

 

The company has disputed the states’ interpretation of the evidence and has argued that its platforms are designed for general audiences rather than specifically targeting children.

 

Meta has also introduced additional protections for teenagers. In September 2024, it launched age-appropriate Instagram accounts for users aged 13 to 17, with features including stronger content restrictions, screen-time controls and parental supervision tools.

 

The states contend that such measures came after years in which Meta had already been aware of concerns about the impact of its platforms on younger users.

 

Internal Evidence

 

The trial is also expected to examine internal company communications and research concerning young users.

 

The states say internal documents show that Meta was aware of concerns about the addictive nature of some of its platform features and their potential impact on teenagers, but failed to make sufficient changes.

 

Prosecutors are expected to present internal messages and research as evidence of how company executives and product teams viewed youth engagement and the amount of time users spent on Facebook and Instagram.

 

The states are expected to argue that the documents demonstrate a conflict between Meta’s public statements about safety and its internal approach to user engagement.

 

Meta is likely to challenge the interpretation of those documents and argue that individual statements or research findings have been taken out of context. It has repeatedly said that it has invested heavily in youth safety and continues to improve its products.

 

Meta’s Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are among the senior executives expected to feature in the proceedings, while experts in child privacy, technology and mental health are also expected to testify.

 

Global Backlash

 

The trial comes as social media companies face growing scrutiny around the world over their impact on children and teenagers.

 

Governments in several countries have introduced or considered restrictions on young people’s access to social media. Australia introduced a law restricting social media access for children under 16, while other countries have considered similar measures.

 

In the US, efforts to regulate social media have produced a patchwork of state laws and court challenges rather than a single nationwide approach. That has placed greater pressure on courts to determine whether existing consumer protection and privacy laws can be applied to the design of social media platforms.

 

The Oakland trial is therefore being closely watched beyond Meta. Its outcome could influence thousands of other lawsuits involving social media companies and claims that their platforms were designed in ways that harmed young users.

 

Wider Legal Exposure

 

Meta is not the only technology company facing such claims. Google, Snap and TikTok’s parent company ByteDance are also facing lawsuits alleging that their platforms contain features that can encourage compulsive use and contribute to harm among young people.

 

Thousands of cases have been brought by individuals, families, school districts and government authorities. Some have already resulted in settlements or verdicts, while others remain pending.

 

Earlier this year, juries in separate cases found Meta liable in litigation concerning youth-related harms. In New Mexico, a jury found the company liable under state consumer protection law, with the case moving into further proceedings over damages and potential reforms.

 

The current federal case could have much broader implications because it involves 29 states and challenges Meta’s conduct under both federal privacy law and state consumer protection statutes.

 

The trial is expected to last several weeks. Its outcome could determine not only whether Meta faces potentially enormous financial penalties, but also whether courts can require significant changes to the design and operation of major social media platforms.

 

The case is People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms Inc., 23-cv-05448, US District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.

 

For enquiries or further information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.