A federal trial began August 18 over claims that Meta harmed young Facebook and Instagram users. The case puts disputed safety and privacy practices before a court.
The outcome could affect families, state consumer-protection enforcement and the design of two widely used social platforms.
Key Facts
- Federal court: California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are presenting the first trial phase in a consolidated action involving 29 state attorneys general.
- Claims: The states allege that Meta used harmful designs, misled the public about youth safety and failed to follow required child-privacy procedures.
- Defense: Meta disputes the states’ addiction, causation and deception theories and points to measures intended to protect younger users.
- Status: The case remains ongoing, and no verdict or final judgment had been entered as of August 20, 2026.
What the states allege
The lawsuit focuses on features and business practices that the states contend encouraged young people to use Facebook and Instagram compulsively.
The states also accuse Meta of concealing or misrepresenting risks associated with those practices.
A separate privacy theory concerns users under 13 and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, commonly called COPPA.
COPPA requires covered online services to provide notice and obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13.
The states allege that Meta collected information from some children without providing the required notice, consent and parental-review tools.
These accusations remain allegations, and the trial has not established that Meta addicted children or caused the harms asserted by the states.
How Meta is defending its platforms
Meta denies that Facebook and Instagram were unlawfully designed to addict or harm young users.
The company also disputes whether the states can prove that its platforms caused the alleged injuries.
Associated Press reported that Meta’s opening presentation questioned the addiction theory and emphasized the company’s youth-safety work.
Meta has also argued that some users under 13 misstate their ages. This bears on whether the company knew it was collecting their information.
The defense does not amount to a court finding that the platforms are safe or that Meta complied with every applicable law.
What the court has already decided
Before trial, Chief U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected Meta’s request. Meta had asked to resolve the remaining case in its favor without a trial.
She also largely rejected the states’ request for rulings in their favor because important factual disputes still required evaluation.
The June 29 order did not decide whether social-media addiction exists or whether Meta’s products caused diminished adolescent well-being.
On COPPA procedures, the court found no factual dispute that Meta had not supplied the specified notice, consent and parental-review mechanisms.
However, the court left unresolved whether COPPA applied, whether Meta had the required knowledge of under-13 users and whether liability followed.
Who will decide the case
Eight advisory jurors are hearing the first phase involving California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey.
An advisory jury gives the judge its findings but does not independently control the final disposition.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers retains responsibility for the ultimate decision, while the other 25 attorneys general are scheduled for later proceedings.
What happens next
The parties will continue presenting testimony, records and expert evidence about platform design, youth safety, causation and child privacy.
The states must prove their claims with evidence, while Meta can challenge their factual and scientific foundations.
Until the court enters a final judgment, the trial establishes neither liability nor a legal conclusion about social media’s effects on children.
