Last Updated: August 19, 2026 
Meta Platforms is defending itself in federal court against allegations that Facebook and Instagram were designed to keep children and teenagers engaged while exposing them to risks the company allegedly failed to adequately address or disclose.
Opening statements began August 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The trial is expected to continue for several weeks.
The case is part of a broader wave of litigation examining whether major social-media companies deliberately designed their platforms to encourage excessive use among young people and whether they adequately protected children from alleged mental-health and privacy risks.
The trial also follows a recent Ninth Circuit ruling that rejected Meta’s attempt to obtain an immediate appeal of rulings involving Section 230 protections and declined to delay the states’ trial. The appeals court concluded that Section 230 provides a defense to liability rather than immunity from being sued, making Meta’s appeal premature.
Four States Lead Meta’s Consumer-Protection Claims
Although 29 states are involved in the federal litigation, the Oakland trial uses a hybrid structure.
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are pursuing claims under their respective state consumer-protection laws. The states allege that Meta designed features of Facebook and Instagram to encourage young users to remain on the platforms for longer periods and misled consumers about the safety of its products.
The states have pointed to features and practices including algorithmically recommended content, infinite scrolling and other engagement-focused design choices. They argue that Meta understood the risks associated with these practices but continued to prioritize user engagement and advertising revenue.
The four states are also seeking changes to Meta’s platforms, including stronger protections for younger users and modifications to features they say encourage prolonged engagement. Proposed remedies include age restrictions, changes to infinite scrolling and other alterations to the way Facebook and Instagram operate.
The states have emphasized that their claims concern Meta’s own product-design decisions and business practices rather than simply seeking to hold the company responsible for content posted by third-party users.
29 States Pursue Federal Child Privacy Claims
All 29 states involved in the federal case are also pursuing claims under the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, commonly known as COPPA.
The states allege that Meta improperly collected and used personal information from children under 13 without obtaining the parental consent required by federal law. The privacy claims are being heard alongside the state consumer-protection claims in the hybrid trial structure approved by Judge Gonzalez Rogers.
The states’ allegations concerning children’s data are separate from the broader claims about the alleged mental-health effects of Facebook and Instagram, although the claims are being addressed within the same federal proceeding.
Meta Denies Wrongdoing
Meta has denied the allegations and maintains that it has invested in tools, policies and research intended to protect children and teenagers who use its platforms.
During opening arguments, Meta’s attorneys disputed the states’ characterization of the company’s products and challenged the claimed connection between Facebook and Instagram use and alleged harm to young people.
eta has also argued that the states’ evidence does not establish that the company deliberately designed its platforms to harm or addict children.
The company has highlighted efforts to improve youth safety and has argued that preventing children under 13 from accessing social-media platforms presents broader challenges, including users misrepresenting their ages.
The allegations remain contested.
The claims described in the lawsuit should not be treated as established findings of liability against Meta.
How Much Could Meta Face in Penalties?
The potential financial consequences could be substantial if the states prevail, but no penalties have been awarded in this proceeding.
Meta has said that its potential exposure could reach approximately $1.4 trillion under the states’ proposed penalty calculations. The attorneys general have indicated that the potential amount could be substantially lower, at approximately $200 billion. Neither figure represents a judgment that Meta currently owes.
The ultimate amount, if any, would depend on the court’s findings, the violations established, and the remedies ordered by Judge Gonzalez Rogers.
The states are also seeking non-monetary remedies that could require significant changes to Facebook and Instagram. Those proposed changes include stronger age restrictions, deletion of certain data and algorithms trained on children’s data, and modifications to engagement-focused features such as infinite scrolling and notifications.
Advisory Jury Will Not Make the Final Decision
The Oakland proceeding has an unusual jury structure.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers empaneled an advisory jury to consider specific questions in the case. The jury’s findings will help guide the judge, but they are not binding. Judge Gonzalez Rogers will make the final determination on Meta’s liability and any remedies or penalties.
This distinction is important because the case is not a conventional jury trial in which a jury’s verdict alone determines the outcome.
What Happens Next in the Meta Trial?
The trial is expected to continue for approximately six to eight weeks, with testimony from current and former Meta officials, experts and other witnesses.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are among the executives expected to testify. Former Meta safety engineer Arturo Béjar has already appeared as a witness for the state.
The proceedings are separate from the thousands of other lawsuits involving Meta and other social-media companies over alleged harms to young users, although many of those cases raise related questions about platform design, youth safety and legal responsibility.
The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision has also allowed thousands of related social-media lawsuits against Meta, Google, TikTok and other companies to continue, after the appeals court rejected the companies’ attempt to obtain an immediate appeal based on Section 230 protections.
For now, Meta continues to contest the allegations. The advisory jury’s findings and the evidence presented at trial will inform Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ eventual decision on whether Meta violated the laws at issue and, if so, what penalties or other remedies should be imposed.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and reports on ongoing civil litigation involving Meta Platforms. The allegations concerning Facebook and Instagram are disputed claims being litigated in federal court, and Meta denies wrongdoing. No final determination of liability or award of penalties has been entered in this proceeding. Court rulings, trial schedules, and the status of the litigation may change. This article does not constitute legal advice.
