Updated August 19, 2026 at 4:51 AM EDT
Sign up for alerts on breaking news and exclusive reporting from NPR
OAKLAND, Calif. - A landmark trial got underway on Tuesday pitting Meta Platforms against a consortium of states accusing the company of designing its platforms to hook young users and misleading the public about it.
The case is the latest in a web of litigation that aims to hold social media companies accountable for alleged harms to the mental health of young people.
"Meta's business model can be summed up in four simple words: 'hook' the users, 'hold' them for as long as they can, 'harvest' their data, and then 'hide' the truth from the public when making public statements," California Deputy Attorney General Megan O'Neill said in her opening statement on behalf of the states.
"It was especially bad for kids," she said.
The stakes in this case are sky-high, with an initial estimate of potential penalties as high as $1.4 trillion — roughly the entire value of Meta's equity on the Nasdaq. Some legal experts compare this moment to landmark litigation against tobacco companies in the 1990s that forced them into big settlements and changed their behavior — and the public discussion about the risks of cigarettes.
Lawyers representing California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey allege that Meta designed its flagship products, Instagram and Facebook, to be addictive to minors with algorithms that "encourage compulsive use" and features like infinite scroll, photo filters and the "like" button. The states say the company knew the platforms were dangerous to kids, but publicly downplayed the risks.
The states also accuse Meta of violating the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, by gathering personal data about users under 13 and not getting parental consent.
Meta has denied these allegations, and in a statement emailed to NPR, said the states' claims are unsubstantiated, and that the company stands by its record of creating strong protections for teens, including enhanced privacy settings and a one-hour timer on Instagram to remind them to close the app.
In court, Paul Schmidt, a lawyer for Meta, argued that the states were cherry picking data points, statements and studies made by Meta out of context, and made the case that Meta was cognizant of the risks to young people and made meaningful efforts to address them.
"Let me be clear: Meta has talked over the years about people struggling with social media," he said in his opening statement to the 8-member advisory jury.
And while Schmidt said there was no dispute that some teens struggle to manage their time on social media apps, or that people can use them to post negative things, "That's something Meta takes seriously, and tries to act on."
"From our perspective, much of this lawsuit is about the government attorneys and their witnesses saying, 'In trying to improve, we'd do it a little differently. In talking about how to improve, we disagree with how you talk about it.' It's meaningful, and the evidence will be meaningful, these efforts Meta has taken to improve," he said.
Social media companies have previously been shielded from some legal actions thanks to both the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says they are not accountable for content posted on them by users.
But in this trial, the attorneys are taking a different tack: Instead of holding the company accountable for problematic content, it accuses them of problematic design — specifically, that Facebook and Instagram were designed to keep young users scrolling. The states argue that keeping kids on the site longer boosted Meta's revenue, but harmed kids' mental health.
O'Neill previewed the states' arguments, which rely heavily on internal Meta communications and studies that the states say contradicted many of the company's public statements.
She cited an internal email from 2016 that noted the "overall company goal" for Instagram is "teen time spent" on the platform. She also noted a study entitled "Long Term Retention: The Young Ones Are The Best Ones" that looked into use by tweens, who are approximately 10 to 12 years old, and concluded the earlier a person starts using the platforms, the more likely they are to stay and to generate revenue for the company.
At the same time, O'Neill said, Meta's executives were downplaying or denying the addictiveness of the platforms. "Meta said it prioritized safety over profits, but it hid the reality that when it came time to make a decision, time and again profits won," she said.
Meta has already lost two cases in state courts this year over similar claims. In March, a Los Angeles jury found that Meta and Google were to blame for the depression and anxiety of a young woman who compulsively used social media as a small child. They awarded her $6 million in damages.
Separately, a New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million and implement new safety measures after a jury found that the company failed to protect young users from child sexual exploitation.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the current case has even higher stakes.
"If the current trend continues, they'll lose again, and they'll have to pay a lot again and they'll have to make appropriate changes," Bonta told NPR in an interview before the trial's opening. He said he believes Meta can change its products so that they are not addictive and harmful to children, "and still be wildly successful as a business."
"We want Meta, in short, to stop hurting our kids, stop knowingly hurting our kids, stop using features that you know create mental health harms to kids. I think it's pretty simple," he said. "I think most parents, guardians, teachers know about these harms and want them to stop."
While an initial calculation — submitted by the state attorneys, and later challenged by Meta in pre-trial documents — reveals possible maximum penalties of about $1.4 trillion, Bonta said the states were not seeking a specific amount, and accused Meta of highlighting that number to make the case look unreasonable.
When asked what the figure should be, he did not give an exact number. "They generated revenue of $200 billion last year, so, you know, maybe that amount would be appropriate. Maybe more. Maybe less," he said.
Tuesday also saw testimony from the states' first witness, former Meta engineer and whistleblower Arturo Béjar, whom Meta last week attempted to bar from testifying.
Béjar worked at Meta in product safety for eight years over two stints, and testified that he was involved in putting together internal studies that surveyed rates at which users, including youth, reported experiencing harmful content, like bullying, self-harm and violence.
He said that instead of publicizing these results, Meta put out different metrics estimating violations of content policies that did not equate to "harm." "I think that these numbers create a false impression of safety," he said.
In one study of over 200,000 users reporting on encounters with harmful content, he said, "We found that younger people reported higher rates [of harmful encounters] for almost every issue."
Béjar also testified that during his second stint with the company from 2019 to 2021, the company was using the euphemism "problematic use" rather than "addiction."
"'Problematic use' is an example of something where they created a label and it undercounted what in some academic literature is considered to be addiction," he said.
Béjar's testimony will continue on Wednesday.
This trial is being presided over by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who also presided this spring over the high-profile lawsuit that Tesla CEO Elon Musk brought against OpenAI.
It is expected to last about six weeks, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg may testify, although the attorneys general said Tuesday they had not yet decided whether to call him as a witness.
Legal experts think Meta, which said in late July that an average of 3.6 billion people use its platforms each day, is likely to appeal any ruling against it, potentially up to the Supreme Court.
Note: The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a charity founded by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, is a financial supporter of NPR.
Copyright 2026 NPR
