Meta hooked children on Facebook and Instagram, court hears
A landmark trial began in Oakland, California, in which lawyers for 29 US states, including California and New York, accuse Meta of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and failing to keep users under 13 off its platforms. The case, described as the biggest legal challenge Meta has faced, will run for six weeks before a jury and could force major changes to the platforms as well as substantial financial penalties, making it a significant test of tech companies' responsibility for young users' wellbeing.
In opening arguments, a lawyer for California claimed Meta identified "millions" of 11 and 12-year-olds on Instagram and did little to remove them, citing internal research showing "1 in 5 teens says Instagram makes them feel worse" and that features boosting time spent conflict with users' wellbeing. Meta's lawyer countered that only around 100,000 underage users were found, argued that privacy laws prevent the company from verifying ages more precisely, and disputed that social media addiction exists at all, pointing to statements from Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri and to figures showing 41% of teens said Instagram made them feel better.
- Meta trial began over claims it hooked children on its apps
- States seek billions and platform changes like ending infinite scroll
- Meta disputes addiction claims, citing mixed teen mental health data
New here? Start with this
Meta is the technology company that owns Facebook and Instagram, two social media platforms where people share posts, photos and videos. Both services require users to be at least 13, although checking people’s ages online can be difficult.
US states can bring legal cases when they believe a company has broken laws that protect the public. The states in this case are challenging how Meta’s platforms are designed and how the company handles younger users; the arguments concern whether features that encourage people to spend more time online can harm children’s wellbeing.
The case matters because its outcome could affect how social media companies are expected to protect young users. It may also influence whether courts can require changes to platform features or impose financial penalties.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The states argue that Meta's own internal research clearly documented significant mental health harms—with one in five teenagers reporting negative effects—yet the company deliberately perpetuated engagement-maximising features regardless. Meta identified millions of underage users but took minimal enforcement action to remove them, suggesting the company prioritised growth and advertising revenue over child welfare despite possessing evidence of harm. This pattern demonstrates knowing exploitation of young users' vulnerabilities, making Meta liable for damages.
The case against
Meta contends that social media engagement facilitates genuine human connection rather than constituting addiction—a clinical phenomenon the company disputes is established—and substantial research shows many teenagers experience positive outcomes, with 41% reporting improved wellbeing. The company faces genuine legal and technical barriers to age verification under privacy regulations, making perfect enforcement impossible rather than negligent. Rather than deliberately targeting children, Meta has implemented safety features and parental controls; moreover, the relationship between platform use and mental health remains correlational, with numerous other factors affecting teenage wellbeing independently of social media.