Meta’s federal trial begins over child social media addiction claims

Four States Take Meta to Federal Court Over Alleged Child Addiction on Social Media

Wertynews.com – Opening arguments began Tuesday in an Oakland, California federal courtroom, marking the start of a high-stakes confrontation between Meta Platforms and a coalition of state attorneys general. The four lead plaintiffs — California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey — are pursuing a damages award that, at its theoretical ceiling, could reach $1.4 trillion, along with court-ordered changes to how the company operates Facebook and Instagram.

These four states were part of a broader 29-state lawsuit filed against the social media giant in 2023, centered on child safety and privacy concerns. The remaining 25 states will face their own trials down the road, while Meta simultaneously contends with additional suits in state courts.

The States’ Case: Deliberate Design and Data Collection

At the heart of the complaint is the allegation that Meta knowingly engineered platform features to keep children scrolling, thereby feeding a youth mental-health crisis. The states further contend that the company routinely gathers personal data from users under age 13 without parental consent, in breach of federal privacy statutes.

“Hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public,” Megan O’Neill, a deputy California attorney general, told the jury, describing Meta’s business model. “It worked especially well for kids,” she added, according to Reuters.

Meta’s Defense: No Evidence of Harm

Paul Schmidt, representing Meta, pushed back on both fronts. He told the court that existing research does not substantiate the claim that social media damages adolescent well-being and challenged the very notion of platform “addiction.” Schmidt characterized the company’s trajectory — and that of CEO Mark Zuckerberg — as one of continuous technological improvement for users.

“They don’t believe they’re going to do well if people don’t like their service,” Schmidt said.

Before the trial began, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman framed the stakes in sweeping terms.

“The largest consumer protection lawsuit in American history. We’ll show a jury that Meta concealed what it knew about the harm its products cause young people because looking away was more profitable.”

In a written statement, Meta expressed confidence in its position, citing years of investment in teen-safety tools both before and after the suits were filed.

“We are proud of our record in protecting teens on our platforms and the amount of effort that we’ve put into developing protections over the years, even before these cases were ever filed, and continuing to the present day. We look forward to showing the judge and the jury those facts in court.”

The Judge, the Timeline, and the Broader Landscape

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who sits in Oakland, is presiding. Appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2011, she has already managed a string of complex Big Tech disputes, including Elon Musk’s suit against OpenAI and its founders and Epic Games’ challenge to Apple’s app-store practices. The current proceeding is expected to run six to eight weeks and will feature testimony from Zuckerberg, other Meta executives, and former employees.

Should the states prevail, the court retains broad latitude in calibrating any monetary sanction. Legal analysts note that a figure anywhere near the $1.4 trillion ceiling would be improbable in practice.

This trial sits within a rapidly expanding wave of litigation aimed at Meta, Google’s YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. Earlier this month, a federal appeals court rejected Meta’s bid to stay thousands of individual suits alleging that its platforms foster compulsive use, clearing the path for those cases to move forward. In March, a jury found Meta and YouTube legally responsible for designing products that drove harmful, addictive behavior among young users; TikTok and Snap had been named in the original complaint but settled before that trial concluded in late January. The jury awarded $6 million to the lead plaintiff in that matter.