OAKLAND, California, United States – Meta is facing a major legal challenge in California over allegations that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to encourage addictive use among children and teenagers.
Opening arguments are scheduled to begin Tuesday in a federal trial led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and involving a coalition of 29 state attorneys general. Okay News reports that lawyers from California, Colorado, New Jersey and Kentucky will present the coalition’s case against Meta.
The states allege that Meta violated federal and state laws, including the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and consumer protection laws, through the design and operation of its social media platforms. The jury was selected last week at the federal courthouse in Oakland.
The case could have wider consequences for Meta than a recent judgment in New Mexico, where the company was ordered to pay nearly $1 billion over allegations involving child safety and sexual exploitation on its platforms.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said the financial consequences of a similar ruling in a much larger state could be “astronomical.” California’s size and importance to Meta’s operations could also make any remedies imposed there more significant.
In the New Mexico case, a jury previously ordered Meta to pay $375 million for violating the state’s unfair practices law. A judge later ordered the company to contribute another $567 million to an abatement fund, bringing the total financial obligation close to $1 billion.
Meta has disputed the New Mexico ruling and plans to appeal. The company has also rejected the claims in the California-led case, arguing that the states have not demonstrated that their residents were misled or harmed by the features at issue.
A key element of the states’ strategy is to challenge the design of Meta’s products and alleged safety misrepresentations rather than focusing primarily on content posted by users. This approach could help the states avoid some of the protections provided to technology companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The New Mexico judgment included measures requiring Meta to improve its age-assurance systems, develop technology to identify potentially under-13 users and make it easier to report suspected underage accounts.
Bonta said Meta had created what he described as a dangerous product for young users and accused the company of knowing about the risks while misleading children, parents and the wider public.
Meta, however, said the attorneys general’s claims were unsubstantiated and that their financial demands were disproportionate. The company also argued that some of the issues raised, including age verification, affect the wider social media industry rather than Meta alone.
The California case could therefore become a significant test of whether state governments can force fundamental changes to the way major social media platforms are designed and operated, particularly in relation to children’s safety and online wellbeing.
