Meta’s Big Reckoning Is Here
Meta is on trial in federal court in Oakland, California, facing a case brought by 29 state attorneys general who allege the company violated COPPA, the federal law protecting children's online privacy, by collecting personal data from under-13s without parental consent. The AGs, led by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, also accuse Meta of making misleading statements about how Facebook and Instagram work. This trial follows a string of recent setbacks for the company, including a landmark liability verdict alongside YouTube in the spring and a $940 million (£740 million) penalty in New Mexico earlier this month over harm to children's mental health.
In opening arguments, prosecutor Megan O'Neill argued Meta deliberately designed features to hook children and keep them engaged, while Meta's lawyer Paul Schmidt pointed to safety features the company has introduced and suggested users themselves bear some responsibility for time spent on the apps. Meta denies wrongdoing and is relying partly on Section 230 protections. A key witness, former Meta employee Arturo Bejar, testified that Mark Zuckerberg did not prioritise youth safety and described a culture where growth-driving features could be tested freely while screening for harm was "near impossible"; proceedings were paused Thursday after a juror fell ill.
- Meta faces federal COPPA trial brought by 29 state attorneys general
- Case alleges illegal data collection from under-13s, misleading statements
- Follows earlier $940m New Mexico penalty and other child-safety verdicts
New here? Start with this
Meta is the technology company behind Facebook and Instagram, social media services where people share posts, photos and videos. In the US, a federal law called COPPA sets rules for collecting personal information from children under 13, including when parental consent is needed.
State attorneys general are government officials who enforce laws on behalf of their states. They say Meta collected children’s data without the required consent and misled users about its services; Meta denies the allegations and points to safety measures and legal protections for online platforms.
The case concerns how responsibility for children’s privacy and safety online is shared between technology companies, families and regulators. Its outcome could affect how the law is applied to social media services and what safeguards companies are expected to provide.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The state attorneys general argue that Meta knowingly violated COPPA by collecting personal data from children under 13 without parental consent, whilst deliberately designing features to exploit psychological vulnerabilities and drive engagement. They contend that internal evidence, including testimony from former employees, reveals a corporate culture where growth was prioritised over child safety, and that this breach of federal law has contributed to documented mental health harms in young users, warranting serious accountability.
The case against
Meta argues that it has implemented substantial safety measures and parental controls to protect young users, that responsibility for managing app usage ultimately rests with parents and users themselves, and that existing legal protections limit platform liability. The company contends that attributing complex mental health outcomes solely to platform use oversimplifies causation, and that regulation should emphasise parental oversight and user agency rather than holding platforms uniquely accountable for outcomes shaped by many factors.