Oakland, California, 18 August (Brussles Morning Newspaper) Twenty-nine US states have taken Meta to court in one of the biggest legal tests yet of how social media companies treat children, after years of trying to keep their case together. The Meta youth safety trial centres on allegations that the Facebook and Instagram owner misled families about risks to young users and unlawfully collected children’s data. Meta denies the allegations.
Why states decided they were stronger together
The origins of the case go back to a bipartisan investigation launched in 2021 into Instagram’s impact on children and teenagers. The inquiry examined techniques allegedly used to increase how often young people returned to the platform and how long they stayed there.
That investigation eventually produced litigation accusing Meta of designing features that encouraged young people to spend more time on Instagram and Facebook while playing down potential risks.
Rather than fight dozens of similar cases separately, attorneys general sought to pool evidence, lawyers and resources.
Legal experts told Reuters that the approach has echoes of earlier multistate action involving the tobacco and opioid industries, where governments found greater leverage by working collectively.
The states also wanted to tell a single, coherent story about Meta’s conduct across the country.
Meta challenged the states’ united approach
Keeping the coalition together was not straightforward.
Meta argued that state consumer protection laws differ too widely for all of the claims to be decided in a single trial.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ultimately settled on a compromise. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are proceeding together with their state-law claims, while federal claims brought under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, can be pursued collectively by the wider group of states.
COPPA governs the collection of personal information from children under 13. The states allege Meta violated the law in its treatment of younger users’ data.
California says Meta must answer the allegations
The states cleared an important hurdle in June when Judge Gonzalez Rogers rejected Meta’s attempt to obtain summary judgment and end key parts of the case before trial.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said after the ruling:
“California is proud to help lead this nationwide reckoning, and we look forward to holding Meta fully accountable at trial in August.”
The ruling did not establish Meta’s liability. It allowed disputed claims to proceed to trial, where the states must prove their case.
Meta has rejected the accusations and says it has invested heavily in protections for younger users. The company argues that the states lack evidence for key allegations and have mischaracterised its approach to safety.
Why the Meta trial could reach far beyond California
The Meta youth safety dispute matters because the states are seeking more than a conventional financial judgment.
The litigation could influence how Instagram and Facebook operate for younger users and help establish how existing consumer protection and child privacy laws can be applied to social media design.
The states’ allegations focus on the mechanics of the platforms themselves — including features intended to maintain engagement — as well as what Meta knew about their effects and what it told parents and the public.
That makes the Oakland proceedings a significant test for the wider technology industry at a time when governments around the world are tightening scrutiny of children’s online experiences.
Meta now faces its biggest test in court
Opening statements began on Tuesday, 18 August. The proceedings are expected to examine internal Meta documents, product decisions and the company’s public statements about young people’s use of Instagram and Facebook. Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are expected to testify.
An advisory jury will consider the evidence, although the final determination of Meta’s liability rests with Judge Gonzalez Rogers.
For the 29 attorneys general, the courtroom battle is the culmination of a strategy pursued for years: keeping as much of the Meta youth safety case together as the law would allow, rather than confronting one of the world’s largest technology companies state by state.
