Published
August 25, 2026
A bipartisan coalition of 29 states is trying Meta in Oakland federal court over claims that Facebook and Instagram were designed to hook children. This is a government enforcement case, so it will not pay families — but the states are asking the judge to strip likes and infinite scroll for young users.
Allegations Only · No Ruling Yet
This article describes a trial that is still underway. The statements below are unproven allegations and trial testimony. Meta Platforms, Inc. denies the allegations, the court has not ruled on liability, and there is no claim for individuals to file in this case. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
On August 18, 2026, a bipartisan coalition of 29 state attorneys general delivered opening statements against Meta Platforms, Inc. in federal court in Oakland, California, in the biggest courtroom test yet of the claim that social media was built to hook children. The case is People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., No. 4:23-cv-05448 (N.D. Cal.), filed October 24, 2023 and presided over by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers — the same judge overseeing the federal social media addiction multidistrict litigation, MDL 3047.Four states — California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey — are leading the design and consumer-protection side of the case, alleging that Meta engineered Facebook and Instagram to maximize the time young users spend on the apps and then misled the public about what its own research showed. All 29 states also allege Meta violated the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting personal data from users under 13 without parental consent. Meta denies the allegations and is defending the case; nothing described here has been decided.
Status
Trial Underway · No Ruling
jury selection August 12, 2026; opening statements August 18, 2026; scheduled to run about six weeks
Who Is Suing
29 State Attorneys General
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey lead the design and consumer-protection claims; all 29 press the COPPA claim
Who Decides
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
an eight-member advisory jury hears the evidence, but its findings are not binding — the judge determines liability and any remedy
What the States Want
Civil Penalties · Product Changes
including removing likes and infinite scroll for young users, time limits, and real enforcement of the under-13 rule
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to Claim
a government enforcement action; any penalties go to the states, not to families
What the States Told the Jury
California Deputy Attorney General Megan O'Neill opened for the states by compressing their theory into four verbs: Meta's business model, she said, was to "hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, and then hide the truth from the public." She told the panel it "worked especially well for kids," and that Meta needed young users while also needing to reassure the adults responsible for them.The states' case leans heavily on Meta's own internal documents and research, which they argue contradict what the company said publicly. O'Neill pointed the jury to a 2016 internal email describing "teen time spent" as the company goal for Instagram, and to an internal study on long-term retention among tweens concluding that the earlier someone starts using the platforms, the longer they stay and the more revenue they generate. She also told jurors that internal communications show employees describing Instagram in the language of drugs and themselves as pushers. Those documents are exhibits and testimony, not findings — the court has not accepted the states' reading of them.
O'Neill was explicit that the states are not asking the court to shut Meta down, acknowledging that social media has benefits for some people. The complaint is about design choices aimed at young users, not about the existence of the platforms.
What Meta Told the Jury
Meta's lawyer, Paul Schmidt, told the panel there is "no dispute" that some people struggle with social media, and that Meta takes that seriously and acts on it. His core argument was that the states are cherry-picking data points, internal statements and studies out of context, and that the research does not establish a clear link between adolescent social media use and reduced well-being.Schmidt also told jurors that much of the case amounts to a disagreement about how Meta has gone about improving its products and how it has talked about doing so — and that the evidence would show real efforts. On the internal messages the states quoted, he acknowledged employees sometimes use loose language in private, and said jurors would hear what the employee who called Instagram a drug actually did to make the product safer. Meta separately says it stands by its record on teen protections, pointing to enhanced privacy settings for teen accounts and an Instagram time reminder, among other features.
The Jury Is Advisory — the Judge Decides
One detail matters more than it sounds like it should: the eight-member panel hearing this case is an advisory jury. Its findings are not binding. Judge Gonzalez Rogers determines whether Meta is liable, and if she finds that it is, she is the one who sets civil penalties and decides whether to order changes to Facebook and Instagram.That structure is why the money headlines and the actual stakes can diverge. Legal observers watching the trial have consistently flagged the injunction — a court order changing how the products work for minors — as the outcome with the most durable consequences for Meta, since restrictions that make the apps less engaging for young users would reach further than a one-time payment.
About That $1.4 Trillion Number
The figure that traveled fastest is not a demand. In a July 7, 2026 court filing, Meta disclosed that the states' legal theory implies a theoretical maximum of roughly $1.4 trillion in statutory penalties — close to the company's own market value — and called the number unsupported. It is a ceiling produced by multiplying a per-violation penalty across an enormous number of alleged violations, not a figure any state has asked the court to award.At a pretrial hearing the week before opening statements, the attorneys general said a more realistic figure would be closer to $200 billion, roughly three years of Meta's after-tax profit. California Attorney General Rob Bonta told NPR the states are not seeking a specific amount and declined to name one, noting only that Meta generated about $200 billion in revenue last year and that an appropriate number might be more or less than that. No penalty has been awarded. Meta shares closed down 4.4% at $543.67 on the day opening statements were delivered.
What the States Want Changed
Beyond money, the four lead states asked the court to order an overhaul of how Facebook and Instagram work for young users. The requested changes reported from the case include:• Eliminating likes — the reaction counter the states treat as a core engagement-and-comparison mechanic.
• Eliminating infinite scroll, the design that keeps loading new posts rather than ending a session.
• Setting time limits for younger users.
• Actually enforcing the under-13 restriction rather than relying on age-gating that the states say is trivially bypassed.
The COPPA claim is the piece all 29 states share. It alleges Meta knowingly let large numbers of under-13 users onto the platforms and collected their personal data without the parental consent the statute requires.
Who Has Testified So Far
The states' first witness was Arturo Béjar, a former Meta safety engineer who worked at the company for eight years across two stints and has testified against it in prior trials. Meta tried to bar him from the stand shortly before trial; Judge Gonzalez Rogers rejected the bid.Béjar told jurors he helped run internal surveys asking users whether they had encountered harmful content — bullying, self-harm material, violence — and that in one study of more than 200,000 users, younger people reported higher rates for almost every category. He testified that Meta instead published metrics counting content-policy violations, which he said do not equate to harm and "create a false impression of safety." He also told the panel that during his second stint the company used the phrase "problematic use" rather than "addiction," which he said undercounted what academic literature would call addiction, and that products such as Reels shipped without safety as an initial consideration. In later testimony he told jurors that some of Meta's safety tools were ineffective because the company made them optional. Meta disputes his characterizations, and his testimony is one witness's account, not a finding.
The states also called Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University, who testified about the timing of the decline in adolescent mental health around 2010 and about research linking heavier daily social media use to higher rates of depression among teens. Her testimony was expected to continue.
Instagram head Adam Mosseri is expected on the stand this week, confirmed by the California Attorney General's office, and Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg is also expected to testify before the evidence closes.
How This Fits With Meta's Other Cases
This trial is one front in a much wider fight, and 2026 has not gone Meta's way in the two cases that have already reached judgment:• March 25, 2026 — the first jury verdict. A Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google negligent in the design of their platforms and awarded $6 million to a young woman who said she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child. The trial judge denied post-trial motions in early June, and both companies appealed in July, so that verdict is not final. OCA covered what the verdict means for future cases.
• August 6, 2026 — New Mexico. A state judge in Santa Fe found Meta had created a public nuisance and ordered the company to pay $567 million into a five-year child mental-health fund and to make product changes for minors, including turning off push notifications for under-18 users during school hours and overnight. That order followed an earlier phase in which a jury found Meta violated state consumer-protection law and ordered $375 million.
• May 2026 — the first federal bellwether. Breathitt County Board of Education v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., a Kentucky school district's case in MDL 3047, settled for a combined $27 million weeks before its Oakland trial, with Meta paying $9 million and no admission of wrongdoing. That money went to a school district's institutional costs, not to any family.
• Tennessee. A separate suit by the Tennessee attorney general raising similar claims about Instagram has been on trial in Nashville.
What This Means for Families
The most common misreading of this trial is the most important one to correct: it does not pay individuals. Civil penalties in a state enforcement action go to the states. There is no claim form, no class, and no fund for parents in this case, however it comes out. What a loss could produce for families is indirect — a court-ordered change to how the apps work for minors, and a set of findings and documents that plaintiffs in other cases would be able to point to.The separate track where individual families do bring claims is the personal-injury litigation: cases coordinated in MDL 3047 before the same judge, and in California's parallel state-court proceeding, JCCP 5255. Those are individual injury lawsuits rather than a class action with a single settlement fund, so there is no general claim form there either — eligibility runs through a law firm that reviews the specific facts. OCA's platform-by-platform guides cover who those firms are reviewing: the Facebook addiction lawsuit page, the Instagram page, and the multi-platform social media addiction overview.
What Happens Next
The trial was scheduled to run about six weeks from opening statements, which puts the close of evidence into much of September 2026. Mosseri and Zuckerberg are the marquee witnesses still to come. After the evidence closes, the advisory jury returns its non-binding findings and Judge Gonzalez Rogers issues the decision that actually controls — on liability first, then on any civil penalties and any injunction.Whatever she decides, this is unlikely to be the last word. Legal observers expect Meta to appeal an adverse ruling, potentially as far as the U.S. Supreme Court, and the company has historically argued that the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act limit this kind of claim. The states' answer to that is the reason the case is framed the way it is: they are not suing over what users posted, they are suing over how the product was built.
Separately, the next federal bellwether trials in MDL 3047 — school-district cases brought by Tucson Unified in Arizona and Charleston County in South Carolina — are set for February 2027.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can families get money from the Meta trial in Oakland?
No. This is a government enforcement case brought by state attorneys general, not a class action for individuals. Any civil penalties would be paid to the states, and the states are also asking the court to order changes to how Facebook and Instagram work. Individual injury claims by families are a separate track, handled as personal-injury cases coordinated in MDL 3047 in the same federal court and in California's JCCP 5255 proceeding.
Which states are suing Meta in this trial?
A bipartisan coalition of 29 states. Four of them — California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey — are the lead states presenting the design and consumer-protection claims about Facebook and Instagram. All 29 press the claim that Meta violated the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting personal data from users under 13 without parental consent. The case is People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., No. 4:23-cv-05448 (N.D. Cal.), filed October 24, 2023.
Is the jury deciding whether Meta is liable?
No. The eight-member panel hearing the case is an advisory jury, so its findings are not binding. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decides liability, and if she finds Meta liable she can impose civil penalties and order changes to Facebook and Instagram.
Is Meta really facing a $1.4 trillion penalty?
That figure is Meta's own calculation of the theoretical ceiling under the states' legal theory, disclosed in a July 7, 2026 court filing, and Meta has called it unsupported. The attorneys general said at a pretrial hearing that a figure closer to $200 billion is more realistic, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta has said the states are not asking for a specific number. No penalty has been awarded, and the court has not ruled.
What changes do the states want Meta to make?
The lead states have asked the court to order an overhaul of Facebook and Instagram for young users, including removing likes and the infinite scroll that keeps loading new posts, setting time limits for younger users, and actually enforcing the rule that keeps children under 13 off the platforms. Legal observers have described this injunctive relief as the part of the case with the most potential impact on the products, separate from any money.
How long will the Meta trial last?
It was scheduled for about six weeks from the August 18, 2026 opening statements, which would run into much of September 2026. Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg are both expected to testify. Any ruling from Judge Gonzalez Rogers would come after the evidence closes, and Meta is widely expected to appeal an adverse decision.
Sources
• People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., No. 4:23-cv-05448-YGR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland), Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers presiding — court case page• California Department of Justice, multistate complaint against Meta (filed Oct. 24, 2023)
• NPR, "Profits won." The child safety trial against Meta kicks off in federal court (Aug. 18, 2026)
• NPR, Whistleblower Arturo Béjar leads testimony in landmark trial against Meta (Aug. 19, 2026)
• Reuters, Meta rejects claims it sought to hook children to Facebook, Instagram (Aug. 18, 2026)
• Reuters, Instagram head Adam Mosseri to testify at Meta child social media addiction trial (Aug. 25, 2026)
• PBS NewsHour, New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567 million over mental health harms to kids online (Aug. 6, 2026)
• U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA)
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Trial underway — no ruling
Case Title
People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.
Case Number
4:23-cv-05448-YGR
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland)
Judge
Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
Date Filed
October 24, 2023
Trial Opened
August 18, 2026
Official Website
N.D. Cal. Case Page
