OAKLAND, Calif. — Opening arguments begin Tuesday in the Meta child safety trial, putting Facebook and Instagram at the center of one of the most consequential legal challenges yet over social media’s treatment of children. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are leading the case, while claims involving a broader coalition of 29 states are also part of the federal litigation.
The states accuse Meta of deliberately designing features that encourage compulsive use by minors, misleading consumers about youth safety and improperly collecting personal information from children. Meta denies the allegations and says it has invested heavily in tools intended to protect teens on Facebook and Instagram.
Meta Child Safety Trial Opens in Oakland
The proceedings are expected to run for six to eight weeks before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri are among the executives expected to testify, along with former employees, experts and other witnesses.
An eight-person advisory jury will hear the evidence, but its decision will not be binding. Rogers will ultimately determine the facts and legal outcome, an unusual arrangement that gives jurors an influential but formally limited role in deciding the dispute.
The states say the case is about product design rather than merely offensive or controversial speech appearing on social networks. Their allegations focus on features such as infinite scrolling, recommendation systems and other engagement mechanisms that they argue keep younger users online for extended periods.
Meta says those allegations ignore years of safety work and oversimplify difficult questions surrounding adolescent mental health and age verification. The company says the states have not demonstrated that particular Meta products caused identifiable injuries to residents or that the company deceived consumers about its safety practices.
States Want Changes Across Facebook and Instagram
Potential remedies extend well beyond monetary damages. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are asking the court to require age-related restrictions, remove or modify infinite-scroll features and impose other nationwide changes to Facebook and Instagram.
Meta has estimated that the states’ legal theories could theoretically expose the company to penalties of as much as $1.4 trillion. Attorneys general have not requested that exact amount and recently suggested their proposed penalties could instead be closer to $200 billion, still an enormous figure by ordinary consumer-protection standards.
The size of those potential penalties guarantees attention, but the structural remedies could ultimately matter more. If a federal judge orders changes to major features across Facebook and Instagram, the ruling could effectively establish national product-design rules through litigation rather than legislation.
That prospect creates a significant policy question. States have legitimate authority to enforce privacy and consumer-protection laws, particularly where children are concerned, but nationwide judicial control over product design can also raise questions about federalism, free expression and whether courts are being asked to perform functions more typically assigned to elected lawmakers.
Children’s Data Adds a Separate Legal Issue
The lawsuit also alleges Meta collected and used personal information from children under 13 without parental permission, violating federal children’s privacy protections. Those allegations are distinct from the more contested debate over whether social media causes addiction or deteriorating mental health.
The states contend internal company records and testimony will show that Meta understood young people were using its platforms while failing to make sufficient changes because engagement remained commercially valuable. The litigation grew out of a multistate investigation launched after former Meta employee Frances Haugen disclosed internal company materials and testified before Congress in 2021.
Meta argues it has repeatedly updated youth protections. The company points to teen-focused account settings, restrictions on who can contact younger users and investments in systems intended to detect people who misrepresent their ages.
Age verification remains one of the industry’s hardest practical problems. Requiring stronger verification could help keep very young children off certain platforms, but systems that require government identification or extensive personal information can create their own privacy and cybersecurity concerns.
Meta Already Faces Major Legal Pressure
The federal trial follows several significant courtroom setbacks for Meta. A New Mexico court recently ordered the company to pay $567 million toward treatment, prevention and other programs addressing harms to young people, following an earlier liability phase and civil penalties in the same case. Meta plans to appeal.
The company has also been involved in a Los Angeles case over alleged social-media addiction and faces thousands of claims from families, school districts, state governments and other plaintiffs. TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube are confronting related litigation over youth safety and platform design.
That growing legal pressure means the Oakland case may influence disputes well beyond Meta. A detailed ruling explaining which design practices violate consumer-protection law could provide a road map for plaintiffs targeting other platforms.
The reverse is also true. If Meta successfully demonstrates that the states cannot prove deception, unlawful data collection or a sufficiently direct link between platform features and harm, the decision could place meaningful limits on attempts to regulate social-media design through litigation.
Parents and Government Have Different Responsibilities
The case presents a difficult question for advocates of limited government. Parents should retain primary responsibility for deciding when children use social media and what services they can access, but parental responsibility does not give a corporation immunity from ordinary laws against deception or unauthorized collection of children’s data.
Government power also requires limits. Concern about children should not become an unlimited justification for political officials to control lawful speech, recommendation algorithms or the design of every online service through expansive interpretations of consumer law.
A durable framework should distinguish between provable misconduct and broader political dissatisfaction with social media. If Meta knowingly violated privacy protections or made materially false claims about product safety, existing law provides a basis for accountability. If the states cannot establish those facts, the immense scale of Meta should not lower the burden of proof.
The Meta child safety trial will now test those competing claims in detail. Whatever Rogers ultimately decides, the case is likely to shape how technology companies, parents, states and Congress approach children’s online privacy and platform design for years to come.
