Meta went on trial in federal court in Oakland on Tuesday, accused by four US states of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to addict teenagers.
The tech giant faces theoretical maximum fines of 1.4 trillion dollars, while state attorneys general demand a sweeping restructuring of how the social media platforms operate for underage users.
Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify during the proceedings, with a verdict expected in early October.
Origins of the Facebook Files investigation
The federal lawsuit stems from disclosures made in late 2021 by former Meta employee Frances Haugen. Haugen leaked thousands of pages of internal research documents, known as the Facebook Files, to the Wall Street Journal.
The leaked files showed that Meta had long measured the damaging impact of its platforms on the mental health of teenage girls, even while offering public assurances that its services were safe.
The revelations sparked a joint investigation by dozens of American states. Two years later, the inquiry culminated in a legal action brought by roughly 30 attorneys general. Four states, California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, were selected to present the case in the Oakland court near San Francisco.
Allegations of app design and child data collection
Prosecutors are seeking to prove three primary claims against Meta during the trial. First, they argue that the company equipped Instagram and Facebook with features specifically engineered to keep adolescents hooked, including infinite scrolling, push notifications sent during the night, and public like counters.
Second, prosecutors contend that Meta misled the public by downplaying the psychological risks associated with its apps. Third, they allege that the company collected personal data from children under the age of 13 without obtaining parental consent, violating federal law.
The legal strategy targets the structural design of the software rather than user posts. Under United States law, internet platforms generally enjoy legal immunity for content published by their users. By focusing on application features and product design, the states aim to bypass that statutory protection.
Financial penalties and potential fines
Meta faces a theoretical maximum fine of 1.4 trillion dollars under consumer protection laws, which penalise each violation individually. State prosecutors calculate penalties of several thousand dollars per infraction and count each affected minor as a separate violation.
Prosecutors have set a provisional claim of around 200 billion dollars, an amount roughly equal to Meta's annual revenue. However, legal observers do not expect a penalty of that scale. The four states reserve the right to adjust their financial demand before arguments conclude, and the presiding judge will determine any final sum based in part on Meta's ability to pay.
In addition to fines, the state attorneys general are demanding that Meta surrender all profits and advertising revenue generated from ads displayed to minors.
Proposed changes for teenage users
Beyond monetary penalties, the lawsuit seeks a fundamental overhaul of how Meta operates for users under 18 years of age. Prosecutors want strict privacy and security settings enabled by default on all teenage accounts.
Under the proposed remedies, like counters would be hidden, notifications would be muted except for direct messages from close contacts, and daily time limits would be enforced. A minor could only relax these restrictions if their account were linked to a parent's account.
Algorithms would no longer be permitted to recommend content based on watch time or user shares, relying instead solely on preferences explicitly stated by the user. Automatic scrolling and video autoplay would require explicit consent, and age verification at signup would be required beyond a self-declared date of birth. All changes would be monitored by an independent overseer appointed by the court.
Meta defense and scientific debate
Meta has stated that it deeply disagrees with the allegations. The company is mounting a three-part defense, drawing on arguments it previously raised during a local trial in Los Angeles that it lost to a teenage plaintiff.
Addressing the deception charge, Meta points out that social media addiction is not recognized as a disorder in the DSM-5, the reference manual of the American Psychiatric Association, and remains a subject of debate among scientific researchers.
Regarding children's data, Meta acknowledges that it did not seek parental consent but argues that the legal requirement does not apply. Because children under 13 are prohibited from using the platforms and their accounts are deleted when identified, Meta maintains it has no effective knowledge of their presence.
Finally, the tech multinational denies any direct causal link between its platforms and adolescent psychological distress, maintaining that teenage mental health issues cannot be attributed to any single application.
