Meta is defending Facebook and Instagram in a major US court battle over whether their design contributed to harm among young users.
A coalition of 29 states alleges the company deliberately built features that encouraged children and teenagers to remain engaged, while also misleading the public about safety risks.
Meta rejects those allegations and says the evidence does not establish that it intentionally designed its platforms to harm or addict children.
The trial began in Oakland on August 18, 2026, and could last around six weeks. Although 29 states are part of the broader litigation, the trial currently features claims brought by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey.
What The States Allege
At the centre of the case is a question that goes beyond individual posts or harmful content: how Meta designed its products.
The states allege that features such as infinite scrolling, notifications and other engagement mechanisms were developed in ways that encouraged young users to spend more time on Facebook and Instagram.
They also accuse Meta of misleading consumers about the safety of its services and improperly collecting or handling information relating to children under 13.
Meta disputes those claims. Its lawyers have argued that the states have not demonstrated that the company intentionally sought to make its products dangerous or that social media has been conclusively shown to cause the alleged mental-health harms. The company has also pointed to measures it says it has introduced to improve protections for younger users.
The case is therefore not simply about whether children use social media heavily. It is about whether specific corporate decisions and product designs crossed legal boundaries.
Why Engagement Matters To Meta
The business context is significant.
Meta’s Family of Apps had 3.60 billion daily active people on average in June 2026, up 3% from a year earlier. The company generated $60.80 billion in revenue during the second quarter, a 28% year-on-year increase.
Advertising remains central to that business. During Q2 2026, advertising impressions across Meta’s Family of Apps increased 14%, while the average price per ad rose 12%. Meta says advertising revenue is influenced by both the number of impressions it delivers and the average price advertisers pay.
Those numbers do not prove the states’ allegations that Meta designed its platforms to hook children. They do, however, explain why engagement is economically important to the company. More time and activity on its services can create more opportunities to deliver advertising, although the relationship between user engagement and revenue is more complex than simply maximising screen time.
What Youth Research Shows
The broader evidence around social media and young people provides important context, but it should not be confused with proof against Meta.
The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on social media and youth mental health says up to 95% of 13- to 17-year-olds reported using a social media platform. It also cites research showing that adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media face twice the risk of mental-health problems.
These findings point to a significant public-health concern, but they do not establish that Facebook or Instagram caused those outcomes. Nor do they by themselves establish that Meta intentionally designed its platforms to create addiction.
That distinction is important as the Oakland court weighs allegations, company evidence and scientific research.
Legal Stakes Are Rising
The Oakland case comes as Meta faces mounting legal pressure over children’s safety.
In March 2026, a New Mexico jury found Meta liable under the state’s Unfair Practices Act and imposed $375 million in civil penalties. In August, a New Mexico court issued a broader final ruling ordering Meta to pay $942 million and overhaul protections for children on Facebook and Instagram.
The financial stakes in the current federal case are also substantial. Meta disclosed in July that four states were seeking penalties calculated at up to $1.4 trillion under their respective laws. Meta argued that the figure was unsupported by the evidence. It is therefore important to describe $1.4 trillion as a disputed potential penalty figure, not as a court-ordered liability.
The Oakland proceedings also have an unusual structure. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers selected an eight-member advisory jury whose findings will not be binding. The final decision will rest with the judge.
For Meta, the implications extend beyond one potential financial penalty. A ruling against the company could put greater pressure on how major social platforms design engagement features, verify younger users and communicate the risks associated with their services.
For the wider technology industry, the case could help define where the line lies between designing platforms for engagement and designing them in ways regulators and courts consider harmful to children.
Also Read: Meta’s $1.4 Trillion Fight Could Change How Social Media Keeps You Hooked
