Meta Legal Challenge: 29 States vs. Meta: How a Landmark Trial on Child Safety Could Reshape Facebook and Instagram
Meta is facing a landmark legal challenge in the United States that could have far-reaching implications for how Facebook and Instagram are designed and operated, after 29 states accused the company of deliberately creating products that exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of children and adolescents.The jury trial began this week in federal court in Oakland, California, and is expected to last six to eight weeks. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are leading the case on behalf of the 29 states.The 233-page lawsuit, filed in 2023, alleges that Meta designed and monetized Facebook and Instagram to encourage compulsive use among young people, concealed internal investigations into potential harms, and violated laws protecting children’s personal data.Meta strongly denies the accusations.
What the 29 states claim
The states’ case centers on four main claims.The first refers to what they describe as exploitative and addictive product design. The states allege that Meta deliberately designed features to stimulate compulsive engagement and encourage users to spend more time on its platforms.These features include infinite scrolling, autoplay, persistent push notifications, likes, and visual filters which states say can contribute to body image issues.According to the lawsuit, internal Meta documents show that the company studied adolescent brain development, including decreased impulse control and increased sensitivity to rewards, and used that knowledge in the design of its products.California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill described the alleged business model during opening arguments as a process to “hook” users, “retain” them for as long as possible, “harvest” their data and “hide” information about the risks.The second claim alleges that Meta concealed internal research showing links between Instagram use and depression, anxiety, body image issues and self-harm among teens.Attorneys for the states told jurors that internal documents included statements suggesting the company knew some teens were still using Instagram despite the negative effects.The third allegation concerns the privacy of children. The states claim that Meta collected personal data from children under the age of 13 without obtaining verifiable parental consent, in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.The fourth relates to alleged violations of state consumer protection, fair trade and fraud laws.
Meta rejects accusations
Meta strongly rejected the claims and argued that the states’ case is based on internal documents and emails taken out of context.During opening arguments, Meta’s attorney, Paul Schmidt, said the company had recognized that some people might have difficulty using social media and had tried to develop tools to help them.“There can be no doubt that Meta has recognized that people can have difficulties using social media and has tried to find tools to help them,” Schmidt said.According to The Guardian, Schmidt also told the jury that Meta had disabled more than 1 million accounts belonging to children under 13 and was “acting significantly to remove” young users.A Meta spokesman said the states were seeking an “extravagant payment” and argued that their claims were unsubstantiated and their financial demands were disproportionate.
Damage could run into hundreds of billions
The financial risks in the case are substantial.California Attorney General Rob Bonta and lawyers representing the other states told the presiding judge that Meta had warned that potential damages could reach $1.4 trillion. However, the states said a more realistic figure would be around $200 billion.This would be close to the $206 billion settlement reached in 1998 between 52 U.S. state and territorial attorneys general and the country’s four largest tobacco companies.The Guardian reported that states estimate potential damages at up to $200 billion, an amount equivalent to Meta’s annual revenue in 2025.However, states are seeking more than just financial sanctions. They also want the court to order changes to how Facebook and Instagram work.
Could Facebook and Instagram be redesigned?
The states argue that financial penalties alone would not address the alleged harms and are seeking court-ordered changes to Meta’s products.Among the changes they have proposed are eliminating infinite scrolling for young users and ending what they describe as misleading representations about the platform’s safety.A ruling requiring product changes could have implications beyond the United States. Maintaining separate, more secure versions of Facebook and Instagram exclusively for US users could be technically and economically impractical.Therefore, the case could also affect how Meta designs its platforms for users in other markets, depending on the scope of any court order.The potential impact of the lawsuit extends beyond Meta’s financial liability because a court-ordered redesign could affect some of the core features through which users interact with Facebook and Instagram.
Former Meta engineer among key witnesses
One of the states’ key witnesses is former Meta security engineer and whistleblower Arturo Béjar.Béjar was the first witness called by the government after his initial statements. The jury is also expected to hear testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri and other company executives.Lawyers for the states are expected to rely on internal company documents and witness testimony to support their allegations that Meta knew of potential harms to young users but failed to adequately address them.Meta, for its part, maintains that it has studied the experiences of young users and has developed measures aimed at supporting teenagers on its platforms.
The case is being closely followed along with broader efforts to address alleged harms associated with social media.A report published in The Conversation highlighted “digital duty of care” as an alternative approach. Under such a system, social media companies would be required to create products with safety standards from the beginning, rather than governments responding to individual harms through separate laws and regulations.Australia is among countries that have already committed to that approach.Therefore, the outcome of the Oakland trial could be significant not only for Meta but also for governments considering how to regulate social media platforms and protect children online.
Source link
