CALIFORNIA (TNND) — A high-stakes trial targeting Meta Platforms entered its second week in a California courtroom, with state attorneys general preparing to present additional evidence about how social media affects children’s developing brains. The case, brought by a coalition of 29 states, accuses the tech giant of deliberately engineering its platforms to addict young users, misleading the public about the dangers those platforms pose, and unlawfully harvesting personal data from children under the age of 13. Only four states are currently participating in this first phase of the trial, while the remaining 25 states are expected to proceed in a later phase. The proceedings have drawn intense national attention, as they represent one of the most significant legal efforts to hold a major social media company accountable for its impact on adolescent mental health. The trial’s second week is expected to focus more sharply on the neuroscience of childhood and adolescence, with expert witnesses testifying about how platforms like Instagram and Facebook exploit the still-developing teenage brain to maximize engagement, often at the expense of young users’ well-being.
The states’ case against Meta rests on three broad allegations that together paint a picture of a company that knowingly prioritized profit over the safety of its youngest users. First, the states argue that Meta designed its platforms with features specifically intended to addict children, including algorithmic feeds, infinite scrolling, push notifications, and reward mechanisms that create unpredictable bursts of social validation. These features, the states contend, are not accidental byproducts of a neutral technology but deliberate choices made to increase the amount of time minors spend on the apps. Second, the states accuse Meta of misleading the public about the safety of its platforms, allegedly downplaying internal research that showed harmful effects on teenagers’ mental health, including increased rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Third, the states claim that Meta improperly collected personal data from children younger than 13, in violation of federal children’s privacy laws, without obtaining verifiable parental consent. Together, these allegations form the foundation of a legal argument that Meta’s business model is fundamentally incompatible with the welfare of children, and that the company must be held liable for the harm its products have caused to a generation of young users.
This week’s testimony is expected to delve deeply into the science of the adolescent brain, a subject that lies at the heart of the states’ case. Last week’s proceedings ended with brief testimony from a psychology professor at San Diego State University, and that testimony is scheduled to continue as the trial resumes. The professor’s expertise is likely to center on how the teenage brain is uniquely vulnerable to the kinds of stimuli that social media platforms are designed to deliver. During adolescence, the brain undergoes significant development, particularly in the prefrontal cortex, which governs impulse control and decision-making, and the limbic system, which processes emotions and rewards. This developmental imbalance means that teenagers are more sensitive to social rewards, peer approval, and the fear of missing out, while being less capable of resisting immediate gratification. The states will likely argue that Meta’s engineers understood these vulnerabilities and built their products to exploit them, using variable rewards and social comparison to keep young users scrolling for hours at a time. Expert testimony may also include brain imaging studies, behavioral data, and longitudinal research showing correlations between heavy social media use and negative mental health outcomes in adolescents.
Legal experts following the case say 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. Mary Graw Leary, a law professor at The Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, explained that the states’ case hinges on proving not just that Meta’s platforms had harmful effects, but that the company knew about those effects and made deliberate design choices that amplified them. “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. This dual focus is critical: the states must demonstrate both the scientific reality of social media’s impact on young brains and the fact that Meta had access to that information through its own internal research. Over the years, whistleblower disclosures and leaked internal documents have suggested that Meta’s own researchers identified serious mental health risks associated with Instagram, particularly among teenage girls, and that those findings were not always acted upon or publicly disclosed. The trial is expected to put that internal knowledge on full display, with former employees, researchers, and executives potentially called to testify about what the company knew and when it knew it.
One of the most anticipated moments of the trial is the expected testimony of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is likely to take the stand at some point during the proceedings, though it is not yet clear when. Zuckerberg has become the public face of the company’s defense in the face of mounting criticism over its handling of children’s safety. In previous congressional hearings, he has apologized to families who said social media contributed to their children’s harm, while also defending Meta’s investments in safety tools, parental controls, and content moderation. His testimony in this trial could be markedly different, as he will be questioned not by lawmakers seeking soundbites but by attorneys representing states who have spent years building a legal case against his company. He may be asked to explain specific design decisions, to respond to internal research documents, and to reconcile his public statements about safety with the company’s private actions. The prospect of Zuckerberg on the witness stand adds a dramatic element to an already closely watched trial, and his performance could influence not only the outcome of this case but also the broader public perception of Meta’s accountability.
The outcome of this first phase of the trial will have significant implications for the 25 states that are scheduled to go to trial later, as well as for the future of social media regulation in the United States. If the states prevail, Meta could face a range of remedies, including financial penalties, court-ordered changes to its platform design, and stricter oversight of its data collection practices. Such a result would likely embolden other jurisdictions and lawmakers to pursue similar action against other social media companies, reshaping the way platforms are built and moderated. If Meta succeeds in defending itself, however, it could blunt the momentum of the broader movement to hold tech companies legally responsible for the mental health crisis among young people. Regardless of the verdict, the trial is already serving as a landmark moment in the ongoing debate over the role of social media in American life. The evidence presented in the coming weeks, including expert testimony about brain development and internal corporate communications, will likely inform public policy discussions for years to come. As the trial continues, all eyes will remain on the California courtroom, where the battle over the digital future of children is being fought one witness at a time.
