California (TNND) — The second week of a high-stakes trial against Meta Platforms Inc. opened with state attorneys general set to present deeper evidence about social media’s effect on children’s brains as they press their claim that the company deliberately engineered its platforms to addict young users. The trial, unfolding in a California federal courtroom, is the first phase of a coordinated legal challenge by 29 states, which accuse the owner of Facebook and Instagram of designing products that exploit the psychological vulnerability of minors, misleading the public about safety, and improperly collecting data from children under 13. Four states are currently participating in the trial, while the other 25 states are expected to go to trial later in separate proceedings. Legal experts say the case could become a defining moment for digital-age regulation, with the potential to set precedent for how courts treat the algorithms, notifications and reward mechanics used by social media companies to maximize engagement. At the core is the states’ assertion that Meta built its platforms around habit-forming features, knew about mounting evidence of harm to teenagers, and nevertheless prioritized advertising revenue and user growth over child safety. The trial comes after years of congressional scrutiny, whistleblower disclosures and academic research linking heavy social media use to anxiety, depression and body-image issues among adolescents.
The lawsuit is part of a broader multi-state effort that has been shaping up since state attorneys general began investigating Meta’s practices in response to public concern about the teenage mental health crisis. In their filings, the states maintain that Meta’s platforms are not merely passive venues for user-generated content but are instead sophisticated persuasion machines, using algorithmic ranking, endless feeds, push notifications and social comparison cues to hold young people’s attention for as long as possible. The states argue that the company’s business model depends on children returning to the apps repeatedly, even when those repeated visits worsen sleep, school performance, self-esteem and emotional well-being. They also accuse Meta of misleading parents and caregivers by claiming that its platforms were safe for minors when, according to the states, internal research already showed otherwise. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Meta collected personal information from children under the age of 13, in violation of federal laws designed to protect children’s online privacy, despite publicly barring those children from its platforms. The states are seeking civil penalties and a court-ordered injunction that could force Meta to change its product design, impose age verification measures, add default time limits for minors, restrict certain data collection and tighten content recommendation systems. Because this initial trial involves only four states, the evidence presented in the coming weeks could serve as a template for the remaining 25 states that will follow with their own cases.
This week, the courtroom focus is expected to shift in particular to the neuroscience of adolescent brain development and what Meta knew about it. Last week’s proceedings included opening testimony from a San Diego State University psychology professor, whose testimony is expected to continue as the states attempt to establish a direct link between Meta’s product design and physical or psychological harms. The scientific argument central to the states’ case is that the adolescent brain is still developing, especially in the regions that regulate impulse control, emotional processing and long-term decision-making. Teenagers, the states argue, are uniquely sensitive to social feedback, peer pressure and immediate reward, which makes features such as “likes,” comments, photo filters, streaks and follower counts especially powerful. Attorneys for the states are expected to bring in experts who compare the platform mechanics to variable reward schedules, a technique also used in gambling and slot machines, in order to show that Meta knowingly built its products to trigger irregular but powerful dopamine responses in young users. The goal is to convince the judge that Meta had a working knowledge of these effects and that it made deliberate design decisions to exploit them. Mary Graw Leary, a law professor at The Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, said the central issue is whether the companies are taking advantage of an underdeveloped brain to promote engagement without regard for the harm that may follow.
Experts following the trial say the second week will likely produce more internal corporate evidence about what Meta’s own researchers discovered before the public became fully aware of the risks. The states have long pointed to internal documents, leaked research and whistleblower accounts suggesting that Meta was aware of harmful effects on teenagers, particularly teenage girls, including increased rates of body dissatisfaction, eating disorders and suicidal ideation. Some of those documents were the basis for earlier news reports that prompted congressional hearings and public apologies from Meta executives. In court, the states are expected to use emails, presentations and internal research reports to show that Meta did not just learn about these risks after years of outside criticism, but identified them internally and still continued product features that amplified the dangers. Graw Leary said the next phase of testimony should reveal “a lot more proof about, internally, what Meta knew and a lot more proof about the effect that it has on children.” She described the second week as critical because it may determine whether the states can move beyond generalized studies and tie specific corporate decisions to specific harms. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive officer, is also expected to take the witness stand at some point during the trial, though the exact timing remains unclear. His testimony could become one of the most consequential moments in the case, as attorneys are likely to ask directly about his role in the launch of Instagram features aimed at younger users and about what he learned from internal safety research.
Meta has vigorously disputed the states’ allegations and is expected to present a robust defense built around scientific uncertainty, parental responsibility and the benefits of social media. The company has argued that the research on social media and adolescent mental health is mixed, and that many studies fail to prove causality rather than simple correlation. It has also noted that teenagers use a wide array of digital services and that social media can provide valuable support for young people who feel isolated, including those from marginalized communities. Meta has pointed to the many safety tools it has introduced over the years, including parental supervision controls, age-appropriate content settings, time management features and messaging restrictions. The company maintains that it has invested heavily in child safety and has worked with outside experts, lawmakers and nonprofit groups to address concerns. In court, Meta is expected to challenge the states’ theory of addiction by arguing that compulsive use of an app is not the same as addiction under the law, and that the alleged injuries are too diffuse and dependent on individual circumstances to be blamed on a single company. The company is also likely to emphasize that the core mechanisms at issue, such as algorithmic recommendations and notifications, are widespread across the technology industry and are not inherently deceptive or illegal. The battle over expert testimony is thus expected to be fierce, with dueling psychologists, neuroscientists and economists testifying about whether social media’s effect on children is significant enough to warrant judicial intervention.
The outcome of this first trial is expected to resonate far beyond Meta and the four states now in court. If the states prevail, the case could establish a legal framework for holding social media companies liable for the consequences of their design choices, and it could push other platforms to change their practices under threat of lawsuits. It could also energize federal lawmakers who have been considering age-verification requirements, online safety standards and federal privacy legislation for children. If Meta prevails, the company could use the result to argue that its policies have been reasonable and that the broad claims of harm are not legally cognizable, potentially complicating the remaining 25 states’ pursuit of similar relief. The later state cases will not be identical, but they will inevitably be shaped by the factual findings and credibility determinations made in this trial. Legal observers are closely watching how the judge handles the scientific evidence, internal documents and testimony from witnesses, including Zuckerberg. At minimum, the trial has already forced the social media industry’s most prominent company to confront its own history under oath in open court. Whatever the ultimate verdict, the case is likely to remain a landmark in the growing legal fight over how technology companies treat children and whether their products can be designed in ways that respect the developing mind rather than exploit it.
