Meta goes on trial over allegations it hooked children on its platforms
Meta went on trial in Oakland, California, on Tuesday, facing accusations from 29 US states that it deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and unlawfully harvested their personal data. Lawyers for the states argue the company's strategy can be summed up as "hook, hold, harvest and hide" – luring young users in, keeping them engaged, collecting their data and then concealing the harm from the public. The case matters because a guilty verdict could force sweeping changes to how Meta designs its platforms and expose it to enormous financial penalties.
The lawsuit alleges Meta broke federal child privacy law and state consumer protection rules by gathering data on under-13s without parental consent, with damages potentially reaching $200bn – roughly equal to the company's 2025 revenue. An eight-person advisory jury, which will make recommendations to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, has already heard from former employees and a psychologist, and is expected to hear from Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri during the six-to-eight-week trial. Meta denies the allegations, saying it bans under-13s and has disabled more than a million such accounts, while a spokesperson dismissed the case as a bid for an "outlandish payout"; the company has already lost two similar cases in March, including a near-$1bn judgment for New Mexico.
- Meta on trial in California, accused by 29 states of hooking children
- States allege illegal data harvesting and addictive design; up to $200bn at stake
- Zuckerberg and Mosseri expected to testify; trial could run six to eight weeks
New here? Start with this
Meta is being sued in a US federal court by 29 states, which accuse the company of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and of collecting personal data from under-13s without parental consent, in breach of child privacy law. The trial opened in Oakland, California, and could run for six to eight weeks, with an advisory jury hearing evidence before making recommendations to the presiding judge.
The key figures involved include Meta's founder Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri, both expected to testify, alongside former Meta employees and outside experts called by the states. Meta disputes the claims, saying it already prohibits under-13s from using its platforms and has removed more than a million such accounts.
The case matters because the states are seeking damages that could reach around $200bn, and any finding against Meta could force changes to how it designs its apps for young users. It follows two earlier related cases decided against Meta in March, including a near-$1bn judgment in a case brought by New Mexico.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for the states' case argue that internal research and former employees' testimony show Meta understood the psychological pull of features like infinite scroll and variable-reward notifications on developing adolescent brains, yet prioritised engagement metrics over children's wellbeing. They contend that knowingly collecting data on under-13 users without parental consent breaches clear federal protections, and that only serious financial and design consequences will force a company of Meta's scale to redesign products with children's safety, rather than attention capture, as the priority.
The case against
Meta and its supporters would argue that the company already enforces a minimum age of 13, has removed over a million underage accounts, and continually invests in parental controls and safety tools, making it an easy but unfair target for the broader, unresolved societal debate about children and social media. They caution that attributing complex, multi-causal harms to deliberate corporate design risks conflating correlation with intent, that a $200bn penalty is disproportionate and could chill legitimate product innovation, and that responsibility for children's online access properly sits partly with parents, schools and age-verification technology rather than platforms alone.