Meta Platforms has gone on trial in a landmark case in which a coalition of U.S. states alleges the company knowingly designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children, a proceeding the company’s lawyers warn could carry financial exposure running into the trillions of dollars.
The states argue that Meta engineered features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay and push notifications to maximize the time young users spend on its platforms, while allegedly downplaying internal research on the harm to minors. The company maintains its products are safe and that it has invested heavily in parental controls and age-verification tools.
Meta’s legal team has argued in court filings that an adverse ruling could theoretically cost the company as much as $1.4 trillion, a figure it presents as evidence of the case’s overreach rather than a realistic damages estimate. The outcome is being closely watched because the stakes touch not only the company’s advertising business but also its broader strategic direction.
The trial arrives as Meta pours enormous resources into artificial intelligence, an effort that depends on the continued profitability of its social platforms. A sweeping legal defeat or mandated design overhaul could complicate the funding of those ambitions, which the company has repeatedly framed as central to its future.
The dispute is part of a widening legal reckoning for social media firms. Meta is also contesting cases in Europe and other jurisdictions over platform design and its effects on younger users, with regulators from Brussels to state capitals scrutinizing how algorithms shape the experiences of minors.
In the United States, courts have already begun to hold the company to account. Earlier this year a New Mexico court ordered Meta to pay damages and adopt new safeguards, a decision detailed in a ruling requiring the company to overhaul its youth-protection measures that plaintiffs in the current trial are likely to cite as precedent.
Attorneys for the states contend that Meta prioritized engagement metrics over child welfare, pointing to internal documents they say show the company was aware of the risks. Meta counters that it removed or restricted millions of pieces of harmful content and rolled out teen-specific account settings designed to limit exposure.
The proceedings are expected to feature testimony over how recommendation systems function and what executives knew about their impact. Should the states prevail, the verdict could force structural changes to how the platforms are built for younger audiences.
A ruling is not anticipated for some time, and any judgment would likely face appeals. The case nonetheless stands as one of the most consequential legal tests yet of whether social media companies can be held liable for the design choices behind their products, with implications for the entire industry.