Meta Faces Landmark Trial Over Alleged Child Addiction

Meta is facing a landmark US trial over claims that Facebook and Instagram were designed to encourage compulsive use among children and teenagers. Opening arguments began on Tuesday, 18 August, in federal court in Oakland, California, with attorneys general from California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey bringing the case against the social-media giant.

The four states are part of a wider group of 29 states that sued Meta in 2023. They allege that the company knew its platforms could harm younger users’ mental health, yet did not make adequate changes; misled parents and the public about safety; and collected data from children under 13 without legally sufficient, verifiable parental consent.

Meta denies the allegations. The company says Facebook and Instagram users must be at least 13 to create an account, and points to safety features and parental controls introduced since the conduct alleged in the lawsuit.

What the states allege

The case centres on the design of Facebook and Instagram. According to the states’ complaint, Meta used notifications, recommendations, algorithmically selected content and so-called “fear of missing out” mechanisms to drive repeated engagement. It also alleges that recommendation systems used “variable reinforcement schedules” to keep younger people returning.

Those are allegations rather than findings of fact. But California deputy attorney general Megan O’Neill set the prosecution’s tone in court, saying:

“What you’re going to hear in this trial is how Meta hooked children on its platforms.”

The states are seeking financial penalties as well as changes to the design and operation of Facebook and Instagram. The precise changes sought have not been confirmed, and no platform-wide remedy has been agreed or ordered while the trial remains under way.

Meta said in a July court filing that the four states’ proposed penalty calculations could theoretically reach about $1.4 trillion if they won. That is Meta’s assessment of the maximum potential exposure under the states’ approach, not an award, settlement figure or forecast of the final outcome.

Evidence begins with safety testimony

Former Meta engineering director Arturo Béjar, who worked on safety issues at the company, testified on 19 August, according to the Associated Press. Béjar said Instagram had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude towards users under 13, and claimed the company concentrated heavily on user numbers and time spent on its products while “safety was an afterthought”.

His testimony is evidence presented by one side in an ongoing trial, not a court finding. Meta’s lawyer, Paul Schmidt, told the court that children’s mental health and their social-media experiences are issues “Meta takes seriously and tries to act on.”

Meta has also argued that the states are taking internal statements, research and individual data points out of context. It has cited enhanced privacy settings for teens and Instagram’s one-hour usage reminder as examples of efforts intended to protect younger users.

A COPPA dispute is at the heart of the case

One major legal question concerns the US Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, better known as COPPA. The law concerns the handling of personal information belonging to children under 13. The states allege Meta collected such information without obtaining verifiable parental consent.

On 30 June, a federal judge rejected Meta’s attempt to end the Oakland case through summary judgment. At that pre-trial stage, the court also agreed with California that Meta’s method of obtaining parental consent did not satisfy COPPA. That was a ruling on legal issues before the trial, rather than a final conclusion that Meta caused addiction or mental-health harm.

Previously, Meta’s main stated safeguard was its minimum account age of 13, backed largely by users entering their dates of birth and by reporting or detection systems. The lawsuit argues that this did not reliably prevent under-13s from accessing the platforms or stop the collection of their data.

Meta points to newer teen protections

Meta says it has since expanded its safety measures. Instagram Teen Accounts, including updated protections, were rolled out in the UK in October 2025, according to Meta. In April, the company announced stricter 13-plus content settings and a “Limited Content” option.

In May, Meta also announced AI-based age-assurance systems intended to identify likely under-13 users and place likely teenagers into age-appropriate experiences. Meta later said the system does not use biometric data or create facial fingerprints.

Other measures include parental supervision tools across Instagram, Facebook, Messenger and Meta Horizon through Family Center. On 13 August, Meta said alerts for supervising parents became available globally when a teenager repeatedly searches for suicide- or self-harm-related terms.

Whether these systems are effective, widely used or legally sufficient is disputed in the Oakland trial. Independent figures demonstrating their effectiveness were not confirmed in the material reviewed.

What happens next

The trial is expected to last around six weeks, according to the Associated Press. The other 25 states in the original coalition are expected to proceed separately later, although no date for that stage has been confirmed.

The Oakland proceedings also follow a separate New Mexico case. On 7 August, New Mexico announced a final judgment requiring Meta to pay $567 million for youth mental-health remedies and to make court-supervised reforms for five years, following an earlier $375 million civil-penalty verdict. That case does not decide the Oakland trial.

For now, there is no verdict and no confirmed remedy in California. What the jury makes of the competing accounts of product design, youth safety and parental consent could nevertheless become one of the most consequential tests yet for the business model behind mainstream social media.