Trending 
Meta is facing one of the most consequential legal battles in its history as four US states take the technology giant to court over allegations that Facebook and Instagram have contributed to harm among children and teenagers.
The trial, which begins Tuesday in Oakland, California, is part of a wider legal fight involving thousands of lawsuits against Meta over the impact of its social media platforms on young users.
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are leading the case, while 25 other states are expected to pursue separate trials later.
At the centre of the lawsuit are allegations that Meta knowingly designed features that encourage children to become addicted to its platforms, contributing to the growing youth mental health crisis. The states also accuse the company of collecting personal information from children under 13 without parental consent, allegedly violating federal law.
“Meta has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies to entice, engage, and ultimately ensnare youth and teens. Its motive is profit, and in seeking to maximize its financial gains,” the lawsuit states.
States Seek Up To $1.4 Trillion
The states are seeking significant financial penalties and changes to the way Meta operates Facebook and Instagram. According to a figure disclosed by Meta in a legal filing, the potential damages could theoretically reach $1.4 trillion.
That amount is almost equivalent to the company’s entire market value. Legal experts, however, say it is highly unlikely that Meta would ultimately be ordered to pay anything close to that figure.
Eric Goldman, a professor and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law, said the states are pursuing an unusually aggressive legal strategy.
“The state attorneys general are going for the gusto,” Goldman said. “They are trying to set the definitive precedent in this case and they have asked for extraordinary damages and they are going to seek extraordinary structural remedies if they succeed.”
Meta has strongly rejected the allegations and described the potential penalty as excessive.
“A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement,” Meta said in a July 6 filing with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
James Grimmelmann, a law professor at Cornell Law School and Cornell Tech, said a $1.4 trillion award would effectively bankrupt Meta.
“It’s not plausible in the sense that Meta doesn’t have that much money and could not get it,” he said. “An award that large would put Meta into bankruptcy, wipe out its owners, and effectively result in the states owning Meta.”
“As a practical matter,” Grimmelmann added, “that seems extremely unlikely to happen.”
Meta Defends Its Record
Meta has disputed the states’ claims and said evidence presented during the trial will demonstrate the company’s efforts to protect young people.
“We’ve listened to parents, worked with experts and law enforcement, and conducted in-depth research to understand the issues that matter most,” the company said in a statement.
The case comes at a difficult time for Meta. The company has already lost two significant cases this year involving allegations of harm to children and teenagers. It also reported a rare decline in profit last month, partly attributed to $2.4 billion in legal expenses.
The company has introduced several measures aimed at protecting minors on its platforms. In 2024, Instagram launched Teen Accounts, which make teenage accounts private by default and impose restrictions on messaging and content, alongside parental controls.
Meta also uses artificial intelligence to identify children under 13 who may be using Instagram and teenagers who may be misrepresenting their ages to gain access to adult accounts.
However, child safety advocates argue that more needs to be done.
Earlier this month, a New Mexico judge ordered Meta to introduce additional safeguards, including time limits for minors, restrictions on AI chatbot interactions and mandatory warnings. The measures, however, apply only to users in New Mexico.
“These AGs have a real chance at fixing the product,” Laura Marquez-Garrett of the Social Media Victims Law Center said during a virtual discussion hosted by the Tech Oversight Project. “For these companies, this is a real point of reckoning. As these cases go forward, this is a leap forward, folks, not a step.”
Trial Could Force Changes to Facebook and Instagram
Beyond the potential financial consequences, the case could have a major impact on how Meta operates its platforms.
Unlike an earlier case in Los Angeles, where a young woman was awarded $6 million after a state court found Meta and YouTube negligent in the design or operation of their platforms, the Oakland case involves state attorneys general accusing Meta of violating multiple state and federal laws.
The earlier Los Angeles case was selected as a bellwether trial from thousands of similar lawsuits. The jury found that Meta and YouTube knew their platforms could be dangerous for minors and failed to provide adequate warnings.
The Oakland case is broader, with allegations involving child privacy, false advertising and unfair competition laws across four states.
“And there’s a lot of them because it’s four different states and at least three different kinds of statutes. There’s a child privacy statute, there’s a false advertising statute and there’s unfair competition statutes,” said Rebecca Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School.
Experts say any ruling that forces Meta to fundamentally change how Facebook and Instagram operate could prove just as significant as a financial penalty.
The stakes were already evident during jury selection last week, when prospective jurors were asked whether they believed Meta had contributed to the youth mental health crisis and to what extent.
While many acknowledged that social media could play a role, some also pointed to parents, climate change and broader social conditions as contributing factors to mental health challenges among children and teenagers.
The trial could therefore become a major test of how much responsibility social media companies should bear for the wellbeing of young users—and whether courts can force some of the world’s biggest technology platforms to change the way they operate.
