A trial began Tuesday in California involving four states that have sued Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. The states allege the technology company designed its platforms to keep young users engaged and misled parents and the public regarding the safety of its products.
The legal action is part of a broader coalition of 29 states that filed suit against the company. During opening arguments on Tuesday, Megan O’Neill, a deputy attorney general with the California Department of Justice, stated that Meta designed features to exploit how children's brains function to maintain long-term revenue. She further alleged the company harvested data from minors and used targeted advertising to maintain user engagement while concealing risks.
Attorneys representing Meta disputed these claims, characterizing the allegations as unsubstantiated. Paul Schmidt, a lawyer for the company, argued in court on Tuesday that the issues raised by the states, including age verification, are challenges faced by the entire social media industry rather than unique failings of Meta. He requested that the jury wait to hear all evidence before reaching a conclusion.
For individual households, the scale of this case involves the daily habits of millions of children and the data privacy of minor users. A ruling against Meta could result in new requirements for age verification and more restrictive data harvesting rules. Families would notice these changes in how their children access these apps and how much information the platforms are permitted to collect and monetize. The states argue these measures are necessary for safety, while the company maintains that the industry as a whole is grappling with how to manage younger audiences effectively.
The trial is expected to last approximately six weeks, during which the jury will weigh evidence regarding Meta's internal research and platform features. This case follows a series of other legal challenges against major tech firms concerning child safety and online protections. A verdict or settlement in this matter could influence future policy at the state and federal levels, particularly regarding the accountability of tech executives for the mental health impacts of their products. The trial is currently ongoing in a California court.