Meta stares down trillion-dollar threat as landmark social media trial begins

Article content

This strategy, several years in the making, succeeded in its first test when a Los Angeles jury in March awarded US$6 million to a 20-year-old woman who said her nonstop use for more than a decade of sites including Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube caused her to suffer anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia.

Article content

‘Outlandish Payout’

Article content

Meta has denied the states’ allegations, and accused the attorneys general of seeking unreasonable design changes and an “outlandish payout.”

Article content

At the trial, the jury will be serving only in an advisory capacity. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ultimately will decide whether Meta is liable for wrongdoing, and if so, what penalty and remedies to impose.

Article content

The attorneys general spearheading the case, from California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, allege under their separate state laws that Meta knowingly designed features that encouraged compulsive and prolonged use of its platforms by young people, while simultaneously misleading consumers about safety features on its platforms.

Article content

The broader bipartisan group of 29 states accuse the company of collecting data from users under 13 years old in violation of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

Article content

Article content

Younger Users

Article content

In addition to seeking an order requiring Meta to restrict younger users on its platforms, the states seek to force the company to remove allegedly addictive features like infinite scroll and its content recommendation systems.

Article content

“We are ready to hold Meta accountable for its role in fuelling the mental health crisis of American children and look forward to trial,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement.

Article content

Meta said in a statement that while the AGs tout the case as a landmark, “their limited claims are unsubstantiated and their financial demands are vastly disproportionate.”

Article content

“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,” according to the company.

Article content

Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram at Meta Platforms Inc., exits federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, April 4, 2025 Photo by Allison Robbert/Bloomberg

Article content

Key Dates in the Litigation

Article content

After opening statements Tuesday, the trial is expected to take about five weeks. Meta co-founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are lined up to testify, as are dozens of other witnesses including current and former Meta employees as well as experts in the fields of technology and psychology.

Article content

Article content

The trial comes on the heels of a nearly US$1 billion hit for Meta in a case brought by New Mexico’s attorney general.

Article content

A state court judge in Santa Fe likened Meta to a polluting factory and ordered the company to make platform changes, including time limits for usage and push notifications for young users. Meta was ordered to pay roughly US$375 million in civil fines and US$567 million to ameliorate social media harms to youths in the state.

Article content

‘Public Nuisance’

Article content

The ruling was a significant test of the legal theory behind the attorney general cases: social media companies are a “public nuisance” that harm the general public. The same theory was used in earlier public-health litigation against Big Tobacco and opioid manufacturers.

Article content

The case in Oakland will test a similar legal argument, this time in federal court and on behalf of multiple states.

Article content

Meta was unsuccessful last week in its emergency request to an appeals court to postpone the trial. The company argued that the trial should wait for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to resolve whether the claims by the attorneys general are foreclosed by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which provides a broad legal shield for lawsuits against internet platforms.