Meta trial over social media harm to children begins

Landmark Trial Opens in Oakland

A landmark trial seeking to hold Meta accountable for the alleged harm its social media platforms cause children began this week in federal court in Oakland, California. Four states—California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey—are plaintiffs in a case that is part of a broader coalition of 29 states that sued the tech giant in 2023. The states allege that Meta misled the public about the safety of Instagram and Facebook and deliberately made the apps addictive for minors. They also claim Meta violated privacy laws by routinely collecting data on children under 13 without parental consent. The plaintiffs are seeking around $200 billion in damages, as well as significant changes to Meta's core platforms.

Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman described the case as "the largest consumer protection lawsuit in American history," according to a report by Deutsche Welle. The states argue that Meta concealed what it knew about the harm its products cause young people because looking away was more profitable.

What to Expect During the Trial

The trial in U.S. District Court in Oakland is expected to last six to eight weeks, with a verdict likely by October. Among the witnesses expected to testify are Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Arturo Bejar, a former Meta employee and expert witness. Court documents indicate that lawyers for the states will question Bejar for three hours about Meta's safety practices and whether the company publicly misrepresented what it knew. Deutsche Welle reported that the company has tried to block his appearance.

The case will be decided by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, with an eight-person advisory jury providing input, though the final decision rests with the judge.

Legal and Constitutional Challenges

Meta's legal arguments face significant constitutional obstacles, according to an analysis by New York Magazine, which interviewed Stuart Benjamin, an expert in First Amendment law at Duke Law School and co-director of the Center for Innovation Policy. Benjamin highlighted a 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Moody v. NetChoice, which held that content prioritization is a form of speech for First Amendment purposes. That ruling, along with the federal law Section 230, has been cited by the judge to bar certain arguments, according to New York Magazine.

Experts have questioned whether the states' theory can easily separate content from design. Benjamin's views suggest the case is a blockbuster that could set a precedent for similar lawsuits against other tech giants. He noted that the outcome will likely end up before the Supreme Court.

Previous Court Rulings and Related Cases

Deutsche Welle reported that Meta has lost two previous state court cases this year. One case in New Mexico focused on child sexual abuse material and consumer protection laws, leading to a court order for Meta to pay more than $942 million after a finding that unsafe design features posed risks to young people's mental health, as reported by BOL News. Another case in California involved a woman's mental distress over addictive design, although the judge there rejected most claims but allowed the design-features argument to proceed.

These earlier rulings provide a backdrop but are not directly binding on the federal case.

Reaction from Advocates and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex

Advocates and celebrities have shown support for the trial. Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, released a statement backing the coalition of 29 states, saying, "We stand with them," according to BOL News. The statement argued that Meta's business model depends on the exploitation of young people's data and attention, and that the harm caused was the result of financial decisions rather than accidental innovation.

The coalition includes states led by both Republican and Democratic administrations, including Kentucky, New Jersey, Colorado, and California.

Meta's Defense

Meta has denied the allegations. A spokesperson told Deutsche Welle that the company is "proud of our record" in protecting teens and that it has long prioritized safety features for young users. The company has also cited First Amendment protections and legal immunity under federal law to argue the case should be thrown out. Judge Gonzalez Rogers has been limiting some of these arguments.