The biggest legal test yet of social media’s effect on children opened this week in a federal courtroom in Oakland — and this time, it isn’t a settlement negotiation. It’s a jury trial, with Mark Zuckerberg expected to take the stand.
What’s on Trial
A bipartisan coalition of 29 state attorneys general filed suit against Meta in October 2023 in the Northern District of California, and the case went to trial on August 18 before US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Four states — California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey — are actively litigating this first trial as a bellwether, with the remaining 25 states’ cases expected to follow based on how this one plays out. An eight-person jury sits in an advisory capacity; Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately decide the case. The trial is expected to run six to eight weeks, with testimony expected from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri, and whistleblower Arturo Béjar, a former Meta employee.
What the States Are Arguing
The lawsuit alleges Meta “harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies to entice, engage, and ultimately ensnare youth and teens,” pointing specifically to design choices including infinite scrolling, constant push notifications, “like” buttons, and image-altering filters — features the states argue were deliberately engineered to maximize engagement among users the company knew were psychologically vulnerable. California deputy attorney general Megan O’Neill told jurors in opening statements that Meta’s business model was to “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public,” adding pointedly that “it worked especially well for kids.”
The legal claims split into two tracks: the four lead states are pursuing consumer-protection claims alleging Meta engineered its products to be addictive to minors and misrepresented their safety, while all 29 states jointly bring a federal claim that Meta unlawfully collected and used children’s personal data.
Meta’s Defense
Meta has firmly rejected the allegations. A spokesperson said ahead of opening arguments that “the AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification.” Meta has also argued it couldn’t have deceived consumers about addictiveness because social media addiction has no formal clinical definition — a legal argument that sidesteps the harm claims by challenging the vocabulary used to describe them.
The Number That Makes This Different From a Settlement
Meta has stated that potential penalties in this case could reach $1.4 trillion — a figure close to the company’s entire market value — while attorneys general have indicated in prior hearings that they believe the real number could land even higher. That scale is part of why this case is being watched so closely: it’s less a routine regulatory dispute and more an existential financial threat, tried in front of a jury rather than negotiated behind closed doors.
Part of a Much Larger Legal Wave
This trial doesn’t exist in isolation. More than 3,000 related cases brought by states, municipalities, school districts, and individuals have been consolidated into broader multidistrict litigation, and Meta isn’t the only defendant — Snap, TikTok parent ByteDance, and YouTube parent Alphabet all face similar claims. A jury in an earlier related case found Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark youth addiction verdict in March, giving states a favorable precedent here. This sits alongside a broader reckoning across the AI and social platform industry this year over products aimed at minors — including OpenAI’s own rollout of ChatGPT for Teens today, covered in our companion story.
What to Watch Next
Zuckerberg’s and Mosseri’s testimony will likely draw the heaviest scrutiny, given how directly it could speak to what Meta’s leadership knew internally about engagement design and youth harm, and when. With 25 additional state cases waiting in the wings, the outcome here — whether it’s a verdict or an eventual settlement before deliberations conclude — will shape the negotiating leverage on every subsequent case in this wave of litigation.
Sources: ABC News, US News, Technology.org
Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.
