Key Takeaways
- Meta’s California trial could bring major financial penalties and sweeping platform changes.
- Twenty-nine states accuse Meta of harming children through addictive designs and data practices.
- A California loss could reshape how social media companies design and regulate their platforms.
Meta faces a major legal test Tuesday as California and three other states begin arguments in a case underscoring the growing Meta legal threat, accusing the company of harming young users through addictive designs and improper data collection.
States target Meta’s platform design
The case is part of a 2023 lawsuit brought by attorneys general from 29 states against Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are leading the trial in federal court in Oakland.
The states allege Meta knowingly designed features that encouraged children and teenagers to spend excessive time on its platforms while misleading the public about safety risks. They also accuse Meta of violating the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting data from children under 13 without adequate parental consent.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said protecting children is among his most important responsibilities.
“Meta designed a dangerous product for young users, knew it to be dangerous, and then lied to children, families, and the community about how dangerous it was,” Bonta said in a statement before the trial.
Meta denies the allegations and says the states’ claims are unsupported. The company has argued that its platforms include safety measures for young users and that the states are attempting to hold Meta responsible for broader challenges affecting the social media industry.
New Mexico loss raises stakes
The California trial comes less than two weeks after Meta suffered a major defeat in New Mexico. A jury there found the company liable under the state’s unfair practices law, while a judge later ordered Meta to pay $567 million into an abatement fund. Combined with an earlier $375 million jury award, the case has resulted in more than $900 million in financial penalties and ordered safety changes. Meta plans to appeal.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez has described his state’s ruling as a potential model for other states pursuing Meta. He told CNBC that the consequences of a California loss could be “astronomical.”
The California case could have a much broader financial and business impact because of the state’s size and Meta’s position in the digital advertising market. Meta’s attorneys have previously estimated that damages could reach $1.4 trillion, although lawyers for the states have said a lower figure of about $200 billion is more likely.
Court could force major changes
Money is only part of the Meta legal threat; the states are also seeking court orders that could require the company to change how Facebook and Instagram operate.
The states want Meta to remove or alter features they say promote compulsive use, including infinite scrolling, autoplay, ephemeral content, beauty filters and algorithms designed to maximize engagement. They also seek the deletion of children’s personal data and algorithms trained using that information if Meta is found to have violated federal privacy law.
Julia Powles, executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law and Policy, said California’s influence makes the case especially important.
“California matters more than any other jurisdiction in the U.S.,” Powles said. “It’s where they are subject to the greatest legal reach, and it’s a jurisdiction watched around the world.”
The trial is expected to last about six to eight weeks and will be overseen by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. An advisory jury will hear the case and provide guidance, but Rogers will make the final ruling. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify.
The case is one of several legal battles reflecting the broader Meta legal threat facing Meta and other social media companies over alleged harm to young users. Its outcome could influence how states pursue technology companies over platform design, youth safety and data privacy.
