The coalition of 29 US states was formed after several years of investigation that culminated in a lawsuit filed in October 2023. Four states – California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey – are leading this first phase of the lawsuit, while the other 25 are expected to file their claims at a later date.
This case differs from the many lawsuits previously filed against the tech giant, which had been brought directly by families. Parents of child victims, rights groups and child safety advocates are not the primary plaintiffs in this federal lawsuit. Nevertheless, they are an essential part of the broader context and are closely following the case.
Their testimonies give a human face to the allegations: cyberbullying, exposure to sexual or violent content, eating disorders, depression, self-harm and even suicide. Families of young victims were present in court when the trial began, with some displaying the names of nearly 600 victims they associate with the dangers of social media.
This is not a criminal trial: Meta is not accused of a crime in the traditional sense. The states primarily accuse the company of violating consumer protection laws and federal legislation protecting children online.
Inside Meta’s Culture of Engagement
At the heart of the case is the particularly serious allegation that Meta deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of young people. The aim, the states allege, was to maximize the amount of time users spend on the platforms, thereby increasing engagement and advertising revenue. The state lawyers specifically cite infinite scrolling, constant notifications, algorithmic recommendations and reward mechanisms that encourage users to keep coming back.
The states also argue that Meta was aware of the risks associated with these mechanisms but failed to make sufficient changes to its products. The company is further accused of collecting data from children under 13 without parental consent, in violation of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), and of misleading the public about the risks facing young users.
The phrase used by the states sums up their argument: “hook, hold, harvest, hide” – luring users in, keeping them engaged, exploiting their data and then concealing the risks.
The financial stakes are enormous. The states are seeking billions of dollars in penalties and damages. In a previous proceeding, Meta had even estimated that the claims could theoretically reach $1,400bn (€1,200bn), an amount the judge subsequently deemed excessive; more realistic estimates now put the figure at around $200bn (€172bn).
But money is not the main issue. The plaintiffs are asking the court to require Meta to modify its products and practices: strengthen age verification, better prevent children under 13 from accessing the platforms, limit certain addictive features and end practices they consider deceptive or dangerous. Among the changes mentioned are restrictions on infinite scrolling, likes and other features designed to prolong user engagement.
Meta’s Big Tobacco Moment
The trial could have unprecedented repercussions and has already drawn comparisons with the Big Tobacco cases of the 1990s – those major lawsuits filed in the United States against cigarette manufacturers after decades during which the industry had publicly downplayed or denied the dangers of tobacco and the addictive nature of nicotine.
In 1999, the US federal government sued the major tobacco companies, accusing them of pursuing a strategy of deception designed to preserve and expand the tobacco market. At the same time, US states had filed their own lawsuits to recover healthcare costs related to smoking, which culminated in 1998 in the Master Settlement Agreement: the major tobacco companies agreed to pay substantial sums to the states and to abandon certain advertising practices, particularly those targeting young people. The comparison with the Meta lawsuit rests on this combination: internal evidence that the companies knew of the risks, accusations that they prioritized profits despite that knowledge and government intervention to force the industry to change its practices.
Meta enters the trial having already suffered legal defeats elsewhere. In March 2026, New Mexico secured a major victory against the company in a case concerning the dangers children face on its platforms. Meta was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and was required to implement additional protective measures. In Los Angeles, a jury also found Meta and YouTube liable in an individual case involving social media addiction and awarded the plaintiff $6m (€5.15m).
What makes the Oakland lawsuit novel, therefore, is not so much the nature of the allegations as their scale and scope. The states are seeking not only compensation for past harm but also an order compelling Meta to change the way its products are designed.
Meta can no longer rely so easily on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which traditionally protects platforms from certain lawsuits related to content posted by their users. In August, a federal appeals court allowed lawsuits over the platforms’ allegedly addictive design to proceed. The legal noose is tightening.
What Zuckerberg Knew
One of the most important witnesses in the case is Arturo Béjar, a former director of engineering at Facebook and former Instagram consultant on user well-being. He claims to have repeatedly alerted management to the risks facing teenagers and to have had more than a hundred interactions with Mark Zuckerberg.
According to his testimony, children’s safety was subordinated to growth and engagement goals. He described an internal culture in which certain concerns about minors were deliberately downplayed or dismissed.
Internal documents and testimony from former employees are therefore central to the states’ case. They are seeking to show not that Meta was slow to discover the harmful effects of its platforms, but that it knew of certain risks and continued to prioritize engagement.
A victory for the state governments could lead to far-reaching changes.
Facebook and Instagram might have to significantly strengthen age verification, modify their recommendation algorithms and limit certain mechanisms designed to keep users engaged. Restrictions on teenage accounts could become much tighter and certain features that are now commonplace – notifications, constant recommendations and endless scrolling – could be redesigned.
The implications could also extend far beyond Meta. A ruling requiring platforms to be held accountable for their design – and not just for the content posted by their users – would set a precedent that could be used against TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat and, in the future, other digital services or even certain apps that use similar mechanisms.
Meta categorically rejects the Big Tobacco interpretation of its products and services.
The defense argues that there is no scientific evidence establishing a causal link between social media use and psychological distress in adolescents, as the states claim. It also points out that the company has developed numerous tools to protect minors and officially prohibits accounts for those under 13. More than one million accounts belonging to underage users have been deleted, the company says. The defense also argues that the plaintiffs are presenting internal documents out of context and that verifying users’ ages is difficult when children lie about their date of birth – something Meta says is beyond its control.
The tech giant fought to prevent the trial from proceeding, but its appeals were denied.
The End of Business as Usual for Meta?
The case has since taken a political turn. The coalition of 29 states is bipartisan, reflecting how concern over the potentially harmful effects of social media on children now transcends traditional political divides.
The stakes of the trial therefore go far beyond any potential fine. Even a settlement could result in significant changes to Meta’s products and practices. But if the case goes to judgment, the consequences could be more far-reaching.
For the first time, such a broad coalition of states is asking a court to recognize that the very design of social media platforms can make their owners liable. If the plaintiffs prevail, Meta could be forced to do something it has largely avoided until now: accept that protecting children is not just a matter of content moderation, but a requirement that could profoundly alter its products, its algorithms and, potentially, its business model. The ruling could reverberate across the tech industry.
