Trial could expose Facebook and Instagram owner to massive damages and force sweeping changes, including age restrictions, limits on infinite scroll and stricter protections for children
Oakland, California: Meta Platforms will face a coalition of US state attorneys general in a California federal court trial beginning Wednesday over allegations that it designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive for children and misled users about the safety of its platforms.
The trial, which is expected to last seven weeks in Oakland, will examine claims brought by Colorado, Kentucky, California and New Jersey, as well as 29 states, that Meta intentionally engineered its platforms to keep young users engaged and unlawfully collected and used children’s data in violation of federal law.
Jury selection is set to begin on Wednesday, with opening statements scheduled for August 18.
Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are expected to testify.
Potentially huge financial stakes
The case represents the biggest test yet of youth social media litigation and could have major financial and operational implications for Meta.
The company has said potential damages could reach $1.4 trillion, close to its current market value of about $1.5 trillion, although the attorneys general have not publicly disclosed the amount they may seek.
In addition to damages, the states are asking the court to impose broad changes on Meta’s platforms, including:
Age restrictions for usersElimination of infinite scroll featuresRemoval of algorithms and AI models trained using children’s dataLimits on notifications and engagement featuresChanges to content recommendation systems to prioritise wellbeing over engagementMeta rejects allegations
A Meta spokesperson said the company strongly disagrees with the claims and remains confident the evidence will support its position.
“We’ve listened to parents, worked with experts and law enforcement, and conducted in-depth research to understand the issues that matter most,” the spokesperson said.
Meta has consistently argued that it has invested heavily in youth safety features and denies allegations that it knowingly prioritised profits over children’s wellbeing.
The company has also argued that “social media addiction” is not a recognised psychiatric condition and therefore disputes claims that it misled consumers regarding addictiveness.
Origins of the lawsuit
The case stems from a multistate investigation launched after disclosures by former Meta employee and whistleblower Frances Haugen.
Haugen testified before a US Senate committee in 2021, alleging that Meta knew its products could negatively affect young users and understood ways to reduce those risks but chose not to implement sufficient changes.
New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said ahead of the trial: “Meta knows its platforms are harming children and teens but continues to keep kids addicted, as we’ve alleged in our lawsuit. Our kids are not data points to be monetised.”
A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 85% of Americans believe social media can be addictive for children, while 61% said social media companies require stronger oversight.
Part of wider legal battle
The lawsuit is one of more than 3,000 federal cases filed by states, school districts, municipalities and individuals against Meta, Snap, Alphabet’s YouTube and TikTok parent ByteDance.
Another group of more than 3,300 lawsuits is also pending in California state court.
Meta has warned that the growing volume of litigation could materially affect its business and financial results.
Recent court outcomes have increased pressure on the company. Reuters reported that juries in two previous cases ruled against Meta, while a New Mexico judge last week ordered the company to pay $567 million and make changes to its platforms after finding it had contributed to a children’s mental health crisis in the state.
Unusual trial structure
The case will be overseen by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
The judge has adopted the unusual approach of empanelling an advisory jury, which will issue findings on specific questions selected by the court. While the jury’s conclusions may guide the decision-making process, the judge is not required to follow them when issuing a final ruling.
Legal experts say the trial could become one of the most consequential cases ever faced by a social media company.
“Big damage awards and judicial dictates about features both potentially pose existential threats to social media defendants,” said Eric Goldman, professor and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law.
