One of the most consequential legal battles in the history of social media got underway this week in Oakland, California, where 29 US states are bringing sweeping claims against Meta Platforms, accusing the tech giant of intentionally addicting underage users and covering up well-documented harms to adolescent mental health. Over the next six weeks, a jury will weigh competing narratives from state prosecutors and Meta’s defense team, unpacking millions of internal company documents that lie at the heart of the case.
The lawsuit, first filed in 2023, alleges widespread violations of state and federal child privacy laws, and asks the court to order billions of dollars in damages and sweeping changes to Meta’s flagship products, Facebook and Instagram—including the elimination of public like counts and the infinite scroll feature that keeps users scrolling for hours on end.
In her fiery opening statement on Tuesday, lead California attorney Megan O’Neill built her case around internal Meta research, employee communications, and executive chat logs that reach all the way to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. O’Neill argued that for years, Meta’s own data confirmed its platforms pose severe risks to young users, yet the company prioritized profit over child safety while deliberately misleading the public about its products’ dangers. Citing one internal study, O’Neill noted that Meta itself acknowledged “teens have an addict’s narrative about use” of Instagram. Another internal assessment, she told the jury, found that product features built to maximize user screen time were “inherently at odds with well-being” and eroded users’ ability to engage in meaningful, value-add activities.
O’Neill pulled back the curtain on what she called Meta’s core business model: “Hook the users; hold them for as long as they can; harvest their data; hide the truth from the public when making public statements.” She emphasized that the company’s public assurances that it prioritizes safety over profit directly contradict its internal decision-making, where growth and revenue have repeatedly won out over public health protections. The prosecution also claims Meta was fully aware that millions of children as young as 11 and 12 were active on Instagram, yet took minimal action to block their access, a violation of age restrictions designed to protect minors.
Meta’s lead defense attorney Paul Schmidt pushed back forcefully against every one of the states’ claims, framing the prosecution’s argument as an oversimplified distortion of the full picture of Meta’s research and policy. Addressing the widely cited internal statistic that one in five teens report Instagram worsens their mental health, Schmidt reminded the jury of the full findings: 41% of teen users reported the platform made them feel better, while an additional 41% said it had no negative impact on their well-being.
Schmidt also disputed the claim that Meta intentionally allowed under-13 users onto its platform, arguing that the very privacy laws the company is accused of violating bar Meta from collecting and storing the detailed user data needed to accurately verify every user’s age. Most notably, Schmidt repeated a stance Meta has already advanced in other 2024 litigation: that clinical social media addiction does not exist as a diagnosable condition.
He acknowledged that some users struggle to regulate their social media use, noting Meta has rolled out a suite of tools to help people manage their screen time. He also pushed back on the claim that Meta designs its platforms to be addictive, citing public statements from both Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri that the company never built its products with the goal of hooking young users, and adding that no conclusive research supports the existence of a diagnosable social media addiction. On the question of how many under-13 users are active on Instagram, Schmidt countered the prosecution’s “millions” claim, putting the actual number at just over 100,000.
As the trial unfolds over the coming weeks, the jury will be tasked with sorting through conflicting evidence to decide whether Meta’s business practices have harmed a generation of young users—and what changes the company will be forced to make if found liable. A ruling against Meta could reshape the design and regulation of social media platforms across the industry, setting a new precedent for how tech companies must address underage use and adolescent mental health.