Federal Trial Begins Over Teen Addiction Claims
Meta Platforms is facing a landmark federal trial in Oakland, California, where nearly thirty US states have accused the technology giant of intentionally designing Facebook and Instagram to hook young users and misleading the public about associated mental health risks.
The trial kicked off before an eight-member advisory jury. It centers on allegations that Meta prioritized corporate profit over minor safety.
State Prosecutors Target Meta’s Business Model
California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill outlined the states’ case in her opening statement. She stated that Meta’s business model relies on hooking users, holding them for extended periods, harvesting their data, and hiding the truth from the public.
Lawyers representing California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey argue that features such as infinite scroll, photo filters, the “like” button, and algorithms encouraging compulsive use were specifically engineered to exploit minors.
Trillion-Dollar Stakes and Tobacco Comparisons
The stakes in the litigation are extraordinarily high. Initial estimates put potential financial penalties as high as $1.4 trillion, a figure roughly matching the entire equity value of Meta on the Nasdaq.
Some legal experts have drawn comparisons to landmark litigation against tobacco companies in the 1990s that forced major settlements and reshaped public discourse regarding cigarette risks.
COPPA Violations and Meta’s Defense
The plaintiff states further accuse Meta of violating the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by allegedly collecting personal data from users under the age of 13 without obtaining verifiable parental consent.
Meta has strongly denied all allegations. In a statement provided to NPR, the company called the states’ claims unsubstantiated and emphasized its creation of strong teen protections, including privacy settings and a one-hour daily limit reminder on Instagram.
In the courtroom, Meta attorney Paul Schmidt argued that the states cherry-picked data points, public statements, and internal company studies out of context. Schmidt acknowledged that some teenagers struggle to manage their time online, but asserted that Meta takes the issue seriously and has made meaningful efforts to address it.
“From our perspective, much of this lawsuit is about the government attorneys and their witnesses saying, ‘In trying to improve, we’d do it a little differently,'” Schmidt told the court.
Challenging Section 230 Protections
However, the attorneys general are employing a different legal strategy in this case. Instead of targeting Meta for user-generated content, the lawsuit focuses on product design choices that allegedly foster compulsive use and harm adolescent mental health.
