Meta must face August trial over claims it addicted children to Facebook and Instagram
The case is scheduled for an August trial in Oakland and could shape how far states can go in treating social-media design as a consumer-protection issue.
Meta will have to face state attorneys general in court this summer over claims that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to keep children and teens hooked, after a federal judge largely rejected Meta’s attempt to end the case before trial.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland denied Meta’s motion for summary judgment, allowing major claims by state attorneys general to move forward. California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the ruling a “critical win” ahead of trial and said the case is currently set for trial in August 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuit accuses Meta of designing Facebook and Instagram to maximize profits by keeping young users on the platforms for longer periods of time, while concealing or downplaying risks to children’s mental health. The case was brought by 29 state attorneys general; the August trial will focus on claims from California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey.
The ruling does not mean Meta has been found liable on the main addiction and deception claims. But it does mean the states cleared a major procedural hurdle and can now try to prove their case at trial.
What the states allege
The states say Meta knew its products could harm young users but kept using design features intended to drive engagement. Those features include the kinds of mechanisms critics have long associated with compulsive use — algorithmic feeds, notifications, social comparison tools, and other engagement loops that encourage users to keep scrolling, checking and returning.
The states’ theory is important because it goes beyond complaints about individual posts or harmful content. Instead, the case focuses on product design — the way Facebook and Instagram are built, tested and monetized.
That distinction could matter legally. Social-media companies often rely on the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to defend against lawsuits involving content posted by users. But states and plaintiffs’ lawyers increasingly argue that addiction-related cases are not primarily about speech or moderation decisions. They are about allegedly defective or unfair product features.
Meta denies wrongdoing. Reuters reported that the company argues “social media addiction” is not a recognized psychiatric condition, that it did not target children specifically, and that it has invested in tools and policies intended to protect young users.
A children’s privacy win for the states
The judge also handed the states a significant win under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, the federal law that restricts online collection of personal information from children under 13.
According to Reuters, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that Meta may have violated COPPA by failing to provide proper notice and obtain parental consent, granting summary judgment to the states on that issue.
The Daily Journal reported that the court found Meta failed to provide the parental notices required by COPPA, while leaving for the jury a key question: whether Meta was subject to the law in the first place.
That distinction is important. COPPA generally applies when an online service is directed to children under 13 or has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from children under 13. The states will still have to prove the remaining factual issues needed to secure relief.
Why an “advisory jury” matters
The August trial is expected to involve an advisory jury, which is somewhat different from an ordinary jury trial.
An advisory jury hears the evidence and makes findings, but the judge is not always bound by those findings in the same way as in a traditional damages case. Advisory juries are often used when the case involves equitable relief — such as injunctions, changes in business practices, restitution or other remedies that are ultimately decided by the judge.
That means the August trial could still be enormously important even if the jury’s role is formally advisory. The judge could use the jury’s findings to help determine whether Meta violated state consumer-protection laws and what remedies, if any, should be imposed.
Possible remedies could include changes to product design, restrictions on features aimed at young users, new disclosures, compliance monitoring, civil penalties or other court-ordered measures. The exact remedies will depend on what the states prove and what each state’s law allows.
Part of a much larger wave of litigation
The Meta case is part of a broader legal assault on major social-media companies over youth mental health.
Reuters reported that the federal multidistrict litigation in California includes more than 2,600 plaintiffs, including individuals, school districts and government entities. A separate Reuters report said more than 3,300 similar lawsuits are pending in California state court.
Those cases accuse Meta, Google’s YouTube, TikTok, Snap and other companies of creating addictive platforms that contributed to depression, anxiety, sleep loss, eating disorders, school disruption and other harms among young users.
The litigation has already produced some early plaintiff-side victories. In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable in a social-media addiction case involving a young user and awarded $6 million in damages, with Meta responsible for 70% and YouTube for the rest.
James R. Hood
Reuters has also reported that Google and Meta were denied a new trial in that case, and that a Kentucky school district reached a $27 million joint settlement with TikTok, Meta, Snap and YouTube in related litigation.
Separately, a New Mexico jury in March found Meta liable in a case brought by that state’s attorney general and ordered the company to pay $375 million in damages over claims involving child safety and exploitation risks on its platforms. Meta said it would appeal.
Congress and regulators are watching
The trial also comes as Meta seeks broader legal protection from youth-harm lawsuits. Reuters reported in June that Meta had lobbied Congress for legal immunity from child-harm claims tied to social-media products such as Instagram, as the company faces thousands of lawsuits from young users and families.
At the same time, lawmakers and regulators in the U.S. and abroad have been weighing stricter rules for children’s online safety, age verification, data collection and platform design. The Australian government has moved to raise the minimum age for social-media use to 16, and several U.S. states have tried to pass laws restricting minors’ access to social platforms or requiring parental consent, though many of those laws have faced constitutional challenges.
The Meta trial could give courts and regulators a detailed look at internal company documents, product decisions and safety debates — the same kind of evidence that has shaped past public-health and consumer-protection battles involving tobacco, opioids and dangerous products.
What it means for parents and consumers
For parents, the case reinforces a practical point: social-media platforms are not neutral bulletin boards. They are highly engineered products designed to capture attention and sell advertising.
That does not mean every child is harmed by Instagram or Facebook, or that every heavy user is “addicted.” But the litigation raises serious questions about whether platforms have done enough to protect minors from design choices that encourage compulsive use.
Consumer advocates say parents should not have to carry the burden alone. They argue that companies with vast data about youth behavior should be responsible for designing safer defaults, limiting manipulative engagement tools, and giving families clearer information about risks.
For now, Meta has avoided an early defeat but failed to avoid trial. The August proceeding in Oakland could become one of the most important tests yet of whether social-media companies can be held liable not just for what users post, but for how the platforms themselves are built.
