Meta returned to court in Oakland, California, on Tuesday to face what could be its most consequential legal battle yet over the safety and addictiveness of its platforms among young people. A lawyer representing a coalition of state attorneys general told jurors in opening statements that Meta's business depends on attracting young users and exploiting their data and attention.
If Meta loses the case, it could fundamentally change how the company's social media platforms operate. Both sides laid out their arguments before jurors on Tuesday, with Meta countering that the states' accusations are not backed by evidence.
The states called their first witness the same day: Arturo Béjar, a former Facebook director of engineering turned whistleblower. Béjar testified that Meta prioritized moving quickly and launching new products over ensuring user safety.
Despite having worked on safety issues at Meta, Béjar said he struggled to stop his teenage daughter from encountering inappropriate content and approaches from strangers on Instagram. He is expected to return to the witness stand on Wednesday.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, speaking at a press conference after the opening statements, said the case centered on the company's culture of moving fast and breaking things, and that what had been broken instead was children's mental health.
Lawsuit filed by 29 states
The case was brought in 2023 by a coalition of 29 state attorneys general, who allege Meta intentionally designed its platforms to addict young people in order to boost its business, harming the mental health of children and teenagers in their states. They also claim Meta misled the public about the risks of its platforms and collected data from children in violation of the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, known as COPPA.
The trial features arguments from lawyers representing four of those states: California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey. Meta executives, including chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to be called to testify.
Meta already faces thousands of lawsuits alleging its platforms caused addiction and harmed young people, as do Snap, TikTok and YouTube, and has lost two such cases, resulting in damages of just under $1 billion. But the potential damages in this trial are far larger: the four states could together seek up to $1.4 trillion.
That proposed penalty is nearly equal to Meta's entire market valuation on the New York Stock Exchange. The attorneys general said they may ultimately seek a smaller sum, and even if the court awards less, the states want an order forcing changes to how Meta's platforms operate.
Meta has called the allegations unfounded and the proposed fine extremely disproportionate to the claims. A company spokesperson said in a statement on Monday that the attorneys general present no evidence anyone in their states was misled, that they claim harmless features such as having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed residents, and that they are trying to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges such as age verification. The spokesperson said that instead of sticking to the facts or the law, the states chose to pursue an exorbitant damages claim.
Opening statements from both sides
In her opening statement, Megan O'Neill, a deputy attorney general with the California Department of Justice, outlined the states' claim that Meta's advertising-based business model depends on collecting data from young people and building features to keep them addicted, in order to maximize the time they spend on its platforms.
The states allege Meta designed features such as recommendation algorithms, infinite-scroll feeds, likes and notifications to be intentionally addictive, according to the complaint. O'Neill said Meta was fully aware of these risks but repeatedly and falsely told lawmakers and the public that its platforms were safe for young people. The states also allege Meta knowingly collected personal data from users under 13 without parental consent, in violation of COPPA.
O'Neill told jurors that Meta needed children and needed to reassure the people who cared about them that their children were safe, and so told the media, Congress, users and parents that Instagram and Facebook were safe for children and that it prioritized their safety and wellbeing, despite having research showing children often had bad, even traumatic experiences on its platforms. She cited an internal Meta document she said was titled "young people are the best," which she said referred to the company's efforts to attract young users.
Paul Schmidt, a lawyer for Meta, argued in his opening statement that the states' lawsuit mischaracterizes the company's platforms and policies and lacks foundation. He accused the attorneys general of selectively cherry-picking internal documents and comments to build their case.
Meta also argued the lawsuit fails to prove any concrete harm caused by its platforms. Schmidt said the company has an interest in ensuring people have a good experience on its platforms over time, and pointed to safety measures including notification controls, parental controls and content policies for teenagers.
The company also invoked the protection of Section 230, a federal law that shields online platforms from liability for content created by users, as well as the First Amendment. Meta argues the states' COPPA claim would require proof the company knowingly failed to remove a large number of users under 13, and says all social media companies struggle to identify underage users. Schmidt said Meta must balance the desire to identify and remove accounts belonging to minors against privacy considerations tied to age verification.
Trial expected to last six weeks
The trial is expected to last at least six weeks, with testimony expected from senior Meta executives including Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri, and Meta's global head of safety, Antigone Davis. The states are also expected to call other former Meta employees turned whistleblowers, as well as researchers who study the impact of social media on young people's mental health. O'Neill said Tuesday the states do not plan to call individual young people to testify.
The eight-person jury will serve in an advisory role. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately review the jury's findings and decide the verdict and any damages.
Tech's 'Big Tobacco' moment
The trial adds to a year of legal reckoning for Meta following earlier courtroom defeats. The wave of lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies, filed by individuals, school districts and states, has been described as the tech giants' "Big Tobacco" moment.
In March, a jury in New Mexico found Meta liable for violating state consumer protection laws and for failing to protect children from sexual predators, ordering the company to pay a total of $942 million in damages and to implement changes such as limiting push notifications. A Los Angeles jury separately ordered Meta and YouTube to pay a combined $6 million in damages for intentionally leading a young woman into addiction and harming her mental health. Meta said it would appeal both rulings.
In May, Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap agreed to settle the first in a series of lawsuits over social media addiction brought by school districts, ahead of a planned trial with a Kentucky district. The terms of the settlements were not disclosed. Another case, filed by Tennessee's attorney general alleging Meta knowingly harmed young people's mental health, is also ongoing.
A teenager in Florida dropped a lawsuit against Meta in July that had accused the company of offering addictive and harmful features, after reaching settlements with TikTok, YouTube and Snap.
Meta, along with the other social media companies, has repeatedly argued that social media addiction does not exist and that it has invested heavily in features to protect young people on its platforms, pointing to parental control tools, default privacy protections for teenagers, and reminders to take breaks. Critics say these measures are ineffective or insufficient to protect young people online.
