Social media on trial as $200bn case against Facebook and Instagram begins
A major trial began on Tuesday in Oakland, California, in which 29 US states accuse Meta of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to be addictive, with features aimed at hooking young users in particular. The case follows earlier rulings against the company, including a bellwether verdict in Los Angeles and a $942m settlement in New Mexico over child safety failings, and could reshape how social media platforms are allowed to operate if the states succeed.
The attorneys general are seeking $200bn in damages, roughly equivalent to Meta's annual revenue, while Meta itself has suggested a ruling against it could cost as much as $1.4tn, a figure the judge has dismissed as "unreasonable". At the heart of the case is Meta's recommender algorithm, which critics say manipulates dopamine responses to maximise engagement by surfacing emotionally provocative content; analysts suggest that forced changes to this system, rather than the damages themselves, pose the greatest long-term threat to Meta's advertising-driven business model.
- Trial began accusing Meta of designing addictive, child-targeting platforms
- 29 US states seeking $200bn in damages from Facebook/Instagram
- Case could force changes to Meta's engagement-driving algorithm
New here? Start with this
Meta is the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, two social media platforms where people share posts, photos and videos. The states bringing the case say Meta designed features, including its recommendations of what users see, to keep young people using the apps for longer.
The case concerns how far a company can be held responsible for the effects of its products on young users. The states are seeking damages, while Meta disputes the claims; a decision could affect how social media platforms design their services and how they earn money from advertising.
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 deliberately engineered addictive features, particularly the recommender algorithm, to maximise engagement and trap young users despite knowing the harms—supported by internal research and documented mental health impacts. They contend this violates consumer protection laws by exploiting vulnerable populations, and that substantial damages are justified to deter such practices and force meaningful change to these systems.
The case against
Meta's position would be that designing engaging features is standard industry practice and not inherently unethical or illegal; users retain agency and choice over their engagement. They argue the causal link between platform use and mental health harms remains scientifically contested, that the proposed damages are wildly disproportionate, and that First Amendment protections cover editorial decisions about content promotion—making this an overreach that could chill legitimate innovation.