Meta is facing one of the biggest legal tests yet over social media’s impact on children, with 29 US states taking the Facebook and Instagram parent to court over allegations that it deliberately designed
its platforms to keep young users hooked.
The trial, which began with opening statements in an Oakland federal court on Tuesday, could expose Meta to penalties running into hundreds of billions of dollars. But the states are seeking more than money. They want changes to some of the most familiar features of Facebook and Instagram — including infinite scroll, likes and the algorithms that decide what users see.
Four lead states — California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey — have accused Meta of designing its platforms to encourage compulsive use among children, allegedly contributing to anxiety, depression and even suicide, while misleading consumers about their safety. All 29 states have also accused Meta of improperly collecting and using children’s personal data in violation of federal law.
Meta denies that its products are addictive and has said there is no clear link between adolescents’ social-media use and poor well-being.
So which features are at the centre of the case, and what could happen to Instagram and Facebook if the states win?
Infinite Scroll
One of the clearest targets is infinite scroll, a feature that continuously loads new content as a user moves down a feed. Unlike a traditional webpage, where reaching the bottom creates a natural point at which a user can stop, infinite scroll keeps presenting new posts and videos without requiring another action.
The states argue that this encourages users, particularly children, to remain on the platforms for longer. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey want the court to order Meta to eliminate infinite scroll as part of a broader overhaul of Facebook and Instagram.
California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill told the eight-person jury that Meta’s business model was to “hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public”.
“It worked especially well for kids,” she added.
Likes And The Engagement Loop
Likes are another familiar feature the four lead states want Meta to eliminate as part of the changes they are seeking to Facebook and Instagram.
Their broader case is that Meta designed its platforms around maximising the amount of time young users spend on them. California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill alleged that the company researched how children’s brains react to online stimuli and tracked their interactions with its apps.
The states are also pointing to Meta’s internal communications as evidence of what they say was a focus on increasing young users’ engagement. According to O’Neill, an internal email sent to Instagram chief Adam Mosseri referred to “teen time spent” as a goal. She also told jurors that Meta employees had privately described Instagram as a “drug” and themselves as “pushers”.
“Meta found the younger a kid is when they start using the app, the better,” O’Neill said.
Meta disputes that interpretation. Its lawyer acknowledged that employees may have used “loose” language privately but rejected the allegation that Meta’s products are addictive.
The Algorithm That Decides What Comes Next
The case also targets something less visible than likes or scrolling: Meta’s recommendation algorithms. These systems decide which posts, videos and other content appear in a user’s feed based on their activity and interactions.
The states argue that this is a crucial part of the engagement system because the algorithm keeps serving users content they are likely to watch, click on or interact with. In their lawsuit, the attorneys general described elements of Meta’s design as “dopamine-manipulating”, alleging that they were built to keep users — including children — on the platforms for longer.
That has direct implications for Meta’s business model. The company relies heavily on digital advertising, and more time spent on Facebook and Instagram means more opportunities to show users ads.
This is why changes to the recommendation system could matter far beyond what appears in a user’s feed: if they reduce engagement, they could also reduce the advertising opportunities on which Meta’s business depends.
Reels And The Question Of Safety
Reels, Meta’s short-form video product, also surfaced during the trial as the states examined whether safety was given sufficient consideration when new products were introduced.
Former Meta safety engineer Arturo Bejar, the states’ first witness, told jurors that “move fast and break things” was a mantra at the company. “Many products were shipped into the world,” Bejar said, citing Reels as an example, and alleged that “safety was not a consideration in how it was initially deployed”.
Bejar has long argued that Meta knew its child-safety tools were inadequate. He also accused the company of adopting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to monitoring whether children under 13 were using its services.
The under-13 issue forms another major part of the trial. All 29 states have accused Meta of violating federal law by improperly collecting and using children’s personal information.
Time Limits And Keeping Under-13s Offline
Along with eliminating infinite scroll and likes, the four lead states want time limits for younger users and stronger enforcement of restrictions intended to keep children under 13 off the platforms.
Meta Says Its Products Are Not Addictive
Meta has rejected the central premise of the states’ case. Its lawyer Paul Schmidt told the jury there was “no dispute” that some social-media users face struggles but argued that research had not established a clear link between adolescent social-media use and a lack of well-being.
He also pushed back against the states’ use of internal communications. While acknowledging that employees might use “loose” language privately, Schmidt said Meta’s products were not addictive and argued that jurors would also hear about the steps taken by the employee who had referred to Instagram as a “drug” to make the platform safer.
Meta has maintained that it has spent years introducing protections for younger users and working to improve safety on its platforms.
Schmidt also argued that CEO Mark Zuckerberg shared the company’s interest in improving its products rather than making them dangerous. “They don’t believe they’re going to do well if people don’t like their service,” he said.
Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri are expected to testify during the trial.
What Happens If Meta Loses?
The eight-person jury will issue an advisory verdict, meaning it will not have the final word. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately determine whether Meta is liable and can take the jury’s findings into consideration.
If Meta is found liable, Rogers could impose civil penalties as well as order changes to Facebook and Instagram.
The financial stakes are enormous. Attorneys general said at a hearing last week that penalties could be closer to $200 billion, equivalent to roughly three years of Meta’s after-tax profit. Meta has said potential penalties could theoretically reach $1.4 trillion, although Rogers has called that estimate “unreasonable”.
The states have said they are not trying to put Meta out of business. What they are seeking, however, could strike directly at the way its platforms generate engagement.
And the case extends well beyond one company. Meta, Snap, TikTok parent ByteDance and YouTube parent Alphabet face thousands of lawsuits from states, school districts and individuals alleging their products harm young users.
In March, a Los Angeles jury ordered Meta and Google to pay a combined $6 million to a woman who said she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child. Earlier this month, a New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million over harm to teenagers after the state’s attorney general accused its platforms of being a public nuisance.
The Oakland trial now puts the design of social media itself under scrutiny. The question is not simply whether children encounter harmful content on Facebook or Instagram, but whether features built into the platforms were deliberately designed to keep them coming back, as the states allege.
For Meta, the answer could determine not only how much it has to pay, but how Instagram and Facebook are allowed to work.
