California Trial Against Meta Enters Second Week as States Press Claims of Youth Addiction
The high-stakes courtroom battle between Meta and a coalition of states has moved into its second week in California, with attorneys preparing to present a deeper body of evidence focused on the neurological and psychological effects of social media on children. The trial, which is being closely watched by legal experts, technology companies, and child-safety advocates, centers on the accusation that the social media giant deliberately engineered its platforms to be addictive for young users. According to the states’ case, Meta has prioritized engagement and profit over the well-being of minors, all while publicizing its platforms as safe and appropriate for young people. The trial is part of a sprawling multi-state legal effort: twenty-nine states and jurisdictions have brought claims against Meta, but only four states are participating in the current trial, with the remaining 25 expected to face the company in court later. The claims broadly accuse Meta of purposefully designing its products to hook young users, of misleading parents and the public about the dangers inherent in these platforms, and of improperly collecting personal data from children under the age of 13, in violation of federal law. The current phase of the trial is expected to lay a foundation for those future cases, making the testimony presented in these early weeks particularly consequential for both Meta and participating states.
As the second week of testimony begins, legal observers predict that the plaintiffs will pivot toward a more granular examination of how social media affects the adolescent brain. The opening week was centered on general patterns of platform usage and the company’s own documentation, but experts say the current phase is intended to connect those practices to a broader understanding of cognitive development during childhood and teenage years. Child development is widely recognized by psychologists and neurologists as a period of profound brain growth, especially in areas governing impulse control, emotional regulation, and sensitivity to social feedback. The states’ legal strategy is to establish that Meta has exploited this vulnerable developmental window by designing algorithmic feeds, notification systems, and reward loops that maximize time spent on the app, often at the expense of sleep, schoolwork, and real-world relationships. The trial is expected to hear from researchers and clinicians who study the impact of social media on young brains, addressing phenomena such as compulsive checking, fear of missing out, and the emotional volatility associated with excessive use. This testimony is being framed as essential to proving that Facebook and Instagram are not simply neutral tools that children and teenagers choose to use, but rather products engineered to exploit deeply rooted neurobiological mechanisms.
Mary Graw Leary, a law professor at The Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, offered outside analysis of the proceedings and highlighted what she sees as the central issue for the states: the argument that Meta knowingly took advantage of children’s underdeveloped brains to increase engagement and retain young users, while disregarding the resulting harm. “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, according to the report. Her comments reflect a broader expectation among legal analysts that this week’s testimony will be more scientific in nature, with a focus on both the internal corporate knowledge embedded in Meta’s research and communications, and the external empirical evidence about the consequences of heavy social media use among minors. Demonstrating that Meta had internal awareness of these risks is considered crucial, because it moves the case beyond a simple design flaw and toward an intentional decision by the company to productize addictive features despite potential harm. The plaintiffs are expected to reference internal studies, emails, and documents that allegedly show company researchers raising concerns about teen well-being, only for those concerns to be set aside or heavily downplayed in public messaging. Connecting that internal awareness to observable harm in young users would allow the states to support claims that Meta acted in a deceptive and unlawful manner.
The trial’s first week concluded with testimony from a psychology professor at San Diego State University, and that expert witness is expected to continue her testimony as the second week gets underway. The professor’s research is likely to be central in establishing a scientific foundation for the states’ arguments, particularly when it comes to linking metrics such as screen time, social comparison, and algorithmic content delivery to mental health outcomes including anxiety, depression, and self-esteem issues among adolescents. Her testimony began with an overview of how brain development continues through the mid-20s, with particular attention to how the amygdala and prefrontal cortex mature at different rates. The amygdala, associated with emotional reactions, develops earlier than the prefrontal cortex, which governs rational decision-making and self-regulation. This imbalance makes adolescents particularly susceptible to the types of social rewards and punishments that social media platforms rely upon: likes, comments, and the fear of missing out. The professor is expected to explain why digital feedback loops are especially potent during this developmental phase and to describe how the hyper-competitive environment of social approval can trigger the same neurological pathways as substance use. The states will likely use her testimony to argue that Meta’s design choices are analogous to building a slot machine calibrated specifically for children, as the intermittent and unpredictable nature of social validation reinforces compulsive use.
Additionally, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to take the witness stand at some point during the trial, although the exact timing has not been confirmed. His testimony is likely to be one of the most dramatic moments of the trial, given the executive’s history of public testimony before Congress and the extensive discovery materials that may be used to challenge his statements. Lawyers for the states are expected to question Zuckerberg about what Meta knew regarding the harmful effects of Instagram and Facebook on teenagers, how executives weighed those findings against corporate growth targets, and why the company publicly claimed to be addressing child safety while continuing to deploy features that allegedly encouraged addictive behavior. The prospect of a deposition-style cross-examination of Zuckerberg in open court potentially provides the plaintiffs with the opportunity to place the company’s most senior decision-maker at the center of the alleged misconduct. His testimony could also test the limits of what top executives are willing to admit regarding internal studies and public-facing positions on safety. In prior congressional hearings, Zuckerberg acknowledged that social media can be harmful for some teens and expressed support for regulation, but the trial format allows for more pointed follow-up questions and the introduction of documents that may contradict his carefully worded responses. Legal experts suggest that the timing of Zuckerberg’s appearance will likely be strategic, possibly occurring after the scientific foundation has been laid, so that the states can confront him directly with evidence of brain-based harms and internal knowledge that they have already presented.
In summary, the California trial against Meta represents a significant test of whether established legal principles can be adapted to address the modern consequences of algorithmic social media platforms. The states are asking the court to find that Meta should be held accountable for the behavioral and developmental injuries suffered by young users, alleging that the company’s profit-driven approach constituted a public nuisance, a violation of consumer-protection laws, or a form of deceptive trade practice. The expected testimony this week aims to solidify the scientific evidence about adolescent brain vulnerability, while also exposing what Meta’s own employees and executives knew about the dangers of their products. With the trial still in its early phase and testimony on brain effects, internal documents, and senior executives yet to come, much of the case will hinge on whether the plaintiffs can successfully link the company’s internal knowledge to the alleged consequences in a way that meets the legal standard of proof. The trial’s outcome could have sweeping implications not only for Meta but for the entire social media industry, as future cases in the other 25 states will likely follow the precedent set here. As the trial enters its second week, the courtroom becomes a crucial arena for deciding how American law should balance corporate autonomy, technological innovation, and the protection of children in the digital age. The testimony of researchers and the eventual appearance of Zuckerberg will likely shape the narrative of the trial, and the final verdict—whatever it may be—will resonate far beyond the California courtroom.