CALIFORNIA (TNND) — The sprawling legal battle over Meta’s impact on young users resumed this week as a California trial entered its second week, with state attorneys general preparing to present more evidence about how social media affects children’s developing brains. The case, brought by a coalition of states, accuses the tech giant of deliberately engineering its platforms—Facebook and Instagram—to hook minors, while misleading the public about the dangers and unlawfully harvesting data from children under 13. While only four states are currently participating in this trial phase, their arguments are set to establish a framework that could shape how the remaining 25 states pursue their own claims in later proceedings. At the heart of the litigation is a simple but explosive allegation: that Meta knew its products were harmful to adolescents, yet chose engagement and profit over the welfare of its youngest users.
The trial’s opening days have laid out the states’ central theory, which hinges on the vulnerability of children’s brains. According to the attorneys general, Meta’s algorithms are specifically calibrated to exploit neurodevelopmental vulnerabilities—particularly during the adolescent years when self-control, emotional regulation, and impulse suppression are still maturing. The states argue that such design choices are not neutral or accidental but are part of a deliberate strategy to maximize time spent on the platforms. They further claim that Meta had internal research demonstrating the harms associated with heavy social media use, including increased anxiety, depression, and body dissatisfaction, yet publicly downplayed these findings. Alongside those allegations, the states assert that Meta collected personal information from children under 13 without parental consent, in violation of federal children’s privacy laws. The company has denied the charges, maintaining that it invests heavily in safety features and that teens continue to use its platforms voluntarily.
As the second week begins, court attention is expected to turn more intensely to the science of adolescent brain development and how social media interacts with it. Legal experts following the case anticipate a steady stream of expert testimony designed to explain, in accessible terms, how the teenage brain processes social rewards, why it is uniquely susceptible to the kind of algorithmic feedback loops used by social media platforms, and how these mechanisms can lead to problematic behaviors. The testimony is not merely academic; it is being used to demonstrate that Meta’s product design decisions were made with full awareness of these vulnerabilities. By connecting the neurological evidence to internal corporate communications, the states hope to establish a direct line between what Meta knew and the harm suffered by young users. That connection is crucial for proving the company acted intentionally, which is necessary for securing penalties and injunctive relief under state consumer protection laws.
The early proceedings have already featured testimony from a psychology professor at San Diego State University, whose appearance began late last week and is expected to continue this week. While the specifics of that testimony have not been fully publicized, court reporters indicate that the professor has been discussing empirical research on how social media use correlates with adolescent mental health outcomes. The witness is likely to address both the strengths and limitations of existing studies, as the states must show not just that Meta’s platforms are associated with harm, but that specific design features—such as infinite scrolling, personalized recommendations, and notification prompts—were included precisely to prolong use. The professor’s continued testimony may serve as a bridge for jurors and the judge to understand how seemingly benign design choices, such as the like button or the “discover” page, can operate as psychological triggers for young users, encouraging compulsive checking and reinforcing negative social comparisons.
Mary Graw Leary, a law professor at The Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, said the central issue for the states is their claim that Meta exploited children’s underdeveloped brains to increase engagement and keep them on its platforms, regardless of the harm it was causing. “I think we’re going to expect a lot more proof about, internally, what Meta knew and a lot more proof about the effect that it has on children,” Graw said of the trial’s second week. Her observation reflects the litigation strategy: rather than disputing that social media has some effects, the states are attempting to prove Meta was uniquely aware of these effects because it conducted or commissioned research internally. The trial is expected to feature internal emails, memos, and presentations from Meta employees, including researchers and product managers, which the states argue reveal a disconnect between what the company learned and what executives acknowledged publicly.
Meta’s defense, so far, has emphasized the positive aspects of its platforms and the existence of parental control tools. The company has argued that it cannot be held responsible for every instance of teen distress, and that social media use is only one factor among many—including genetics, family environment, and peer relationships—that shape adolescent mental health. But the states are expected to counter that Meta’s controls are insufficient and often buried, while the product’s core mechanics continuously push minors toward content that boosts their engagement. With 29 states involved in the broader litigation, the outcome of this trial could have far-reaching consequences. A victory for the states could result in court-ordered changes to Meta’s product design, substantial financial penalties, and increased regulatory oversight. Alternatively, a decision for Meta could bolster the company’s arguments that the platform is not a defective product but a source of community and support. Either way, the testimony presented over the coming days—especially any from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg—will be closely scrutinized as a measure of the tech industry’s accountability for its youngest users. Zuckerberg is expected to take the stand at some point during the trial, though it is not clear when, and his appearance could well be the most consequential moment in a case already seen as a defining legal battle over the power and responsibilities of social media companies.
