Lawyers for four states delivered opening statements Tuesday in an Oakland federal courtroom, telling an eight-person jury that Meta deliberately built Facebook and Instagram to addict children and teenagers and then misled the public about the risks.
California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are leading the consumer-protection claims on behalf of a bipartisan group of 29 states. The states also bring a federal claim alleging that Meta collected and used personal data from users under 13 without verifiable parental consent, in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The case is the first to reach trial in the multidistrict litigation over social media and youth mental health, which covers thousands of active cases.
Everything the states said Tuesday is an allegation. No court has found Meta liable, and the company denies the claims. This report covers an active trial, and the facts, filings, and rulings may change as proceedings continue.
The Mechanics of a Trial That Is Not Quite a Jury Trial
The procedural structure here is unusual enough to matter for anyone following the outcome. The eight-person jury will issue an advisory verdict. Chief U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, not the jury, will determine whether Meta is liable.
If she finds liability, Rogers could impose civil penalties and order changes to how Facebook and Instagram operate. The states have not specified an amount, though attorneys general indicated at a hearing last week that the figure could approach $200 billion. Meta has put the theoretical exposure far higher, saying penalties could reach $1.4 trillion, close to the company's own market value.
The specific design features at issue are ordinary and familiar. According to the states' presentation, reported by NPR, the claims center on algorithms that encourage compulsive use, along with infinite scroll, photo filters, and the "like" button. Deputy Attorney General Megan O'Neill told the court that Meta said it prioritized safety over profits while hiding that, in decision after decision, time and again, profits won.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has said the company designed a dangerous product for young users, knew it was dangerous, and then misrepresented that danger to families, according to CNN. Meta has called the allegations unsubstantiated and says it stands by its record on youth safety. Its attorneys argued that the company invested heavily in protecting young users, made no misleading safety statements, and that research does not show a clear link between adolescent social media use and reduced well-being. The trial is expected to last four to six weeks, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg expected to testify.
The Reason a Design Case Is Harder Than It Sounds
The states have chosen a legal theory that turns on product engineering rather than on what users posted, and that choice is deliberate.
Meta has argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields it from liability for third-party content. A federal appeals court held earlier this month that companies must face the consolidated lawsuits, allowing the case to proceed without resolving whether the statute ultimately protects Meta. MedicalDaily previously reported on the appeals court ruling that cleared this trial.
Proving that a design feature caused a mental health outcome in a population is genuinely difficult, and the underlying science is contested. Research on adolescents and social media has produced a mix of findings, with some large studies showing associations between heavy use and worse mental health and others finding effects that are small or inconsistent. An association in observational data does not establish that a product caused an outcome in any individual child, and the states will need to convince a judge, not a jury, that their evidence clears that bar.
The Verdicts That Came Before This One
This trial does not arrive in isolation, and the surrounding record cuts in more than one direction.
In March, a Los Angeles jury ordered Meta and Google to pay $6 million to a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child. TikTok and Snap had settled their portions of that case before trial, on undisclosed terms. Earlier this month, a New Mexico court ordered Meta to pay $567 million to address teen mental health after that state's attorney general argued the platforms constituted a public nuisance. A trial brought by Tennessee's attorney general is also underway.
The pattern is a legal environment in motion rather than a settled question. Rogers removed Zuckerberg as an individual defendant in an earlier ruling, finding the evidence at that time did not support the inference that he personally directed a scheme to conceal information.
The Part Parents Can Act on Regardless of the Verdict
Nothing in this trial changes what is available to a family today, and the outcome will not arrive for weeks at the earliest. What is within reach now is more mundane and more useful.
Both Instagram and Facebook offer supervision tools that let a parent see and limit time spent, manage who can message a teenager, and adjust content settings. Those controls exist independently of any court ruling. Sleep is the most consistently supported intervention in this area, and keeping phones out of bedrooms overnight addresses one of the clearest documented pathways between late-night use and next-day mood.
The warning signs worth watching in an adolescent are changes in sleep or appetite, withdrawal from friends or activities, falling grades, persistent hopelessness or irritability, and any talk of death or self-harm. A pediatrician is the right first call for evaluation, and this article is general information rather than a diagnosis.
Anyone in crisis, or worried about someone who is, can reach the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by call or text, 24 hours a day.
What remains unresolved is nearly everything that matters legally. The evidence both sides present, Judge Rogers's liability finding, and any remedy she orders are all ahead. MedicalDaily will report on the verdict and on any court-ordered changes to the platforms.
Key Questions Answered
Which states are leading the case? California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are leading consumer-protection claims on behalf of a bipartisan coalition of 29 states, which also brings a federal claim over children's data under COPPA.
Has anything been proven? No. These are allegations. Meta denies them, and no court has made a finding of liability in this case.
Who decides the outcome? The eight-person jury issues an advisory verdict. Chief U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers determines liability and any remedy.
What are the states asking for? Civil penalties and court-ordered changes to Facebook and Instagram. No amount has been specified, though attorneys general have suggested a figure approaching $200 billion. Meta has said the theoretical maximum could reach $1.4 trillion.
What is Meta's defense? That it invested heavily in protecting young users, made no misleading safety statements, and that the research does not establish a clear link between adolescent social media use and reduced well-being.
What can parents do now? Use the platforms' existing supervision tools, keep phones out of bedrooms overnight, and raise concerns about a teenager's mood or behavior with a pediatrician.
Where can a family get urgent help? The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is available by call or text, 24 hours a day.
