States are taking Meta to trial in California, alleging the company contributes to a youth mental health crisis through its social media platforms, with potential damages reaching $1.4 trillion.
In a landmark case set to begin this week in California, several states are taking Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to trial over allegations that its platforms harm children’s mental health. This lawsuit is among thousands that Meta faces concerning child safety, but it stands out due to the extensive financial damages being sought, which could theoretically total as much as $1.4 trillion.
The lawsuit accuses Meta of deliberately designing features that encourage addiction among young users. It also claims that the company collects data on children under the age of 13 without parental consent, violating federal law. The lawsuit states, “Meta has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies to entice, engage, and ultimately ensnare youth and teens. Its motive is profit, and in seeking to maximize its financial gains.”
Initially filed three years ago, this trial will feature four states—California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey—as plaintiffs, while the other 25 states involved in the lawsuit are expected to have their trials later. Meta has publicly disputed the allegations, asserting that the evidence presented in court will demonstrate its commitment to supporting young people. The company stated, “We’ve listened to parents, worked with experts and law enforcement, and conducted in-depth research to understand the issues that matter most.”
The stakes are particularly high for Meta, which has already faced setbacks in two significant cases related to child and teen safety this year. The company reported a rare profit decline last month, partly attributed to $2.4 billion in legal expenses. The potential damages of $1.4 trillion, disclosed in a legal filing, are nearly equivalent to the company’s entire market capitalization, raising concerns that such a penalty could lead to bankruptcy or state ownership.
Eric Goldman, a professor and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law, remarked, “The state attorneys general are going for the gusto. They are trying to set the definitive precedent in this case and they have asked for extraordinary damages and they are going to seek extraordinary structural remedies if they succeed.”
Meta has characterized the potential penalty as “untethered to any claimed violation” by the states. In a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the company argued, “A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement.”
If Meta loses the trial, the court would have significant discretion over the size of any financial penalty. Legal experts suggest that while the $1.4 trillion figure is unlikely to be imposed, the case could still result in substantial penalties. James Grimmelmann, a law professor at Cornell Law School, noted, “It’s not plausible in the sense that Meta doesn’t have that much money and could not get it. An award that large would put Meta into bankruptcy, wipe out its owners, and effectively result in the states owning Meta.”
The complexity of the Oakland trial contrasts with a previous case in Los Angeles, where a state court awarded $6 million in damages to a young woman who testified about her addiction to social media as a child. That case served as a bellwether, providing insights into how arguments might fare in court. The jury found that both Meta and YouTube were negligent in their platform designs, which contributed to the plaintiff’s harm.
The current trial, however, involves state attorneys general as plaintiffs and focuses on alleged violations of state and federal statutes. According to Rebecca Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, “There’s a lot of them because it’s four different states and at least three different kinds of statutes. There’s a child privacy statute, there’s a false advertising statute, and there’s unfair competition statutes.”
While Meta has introduced new safety features aimed at protecting minors, such as private teen accounts on Instagram and parental controls, advocates argue that more needs to be done. Recently, a New Mexico judge mandated new safety measures for social media platforms, including time limits for minors and mandatory warnings about potential dangers, though this order only applies to users in that state.
Laura Marquez-Garrett of the Social Media Victims Law Center emphasized the importance of the case, stating, “These AGs have a real chance at fixing the product. For these companies, this is a real point of reckoning. As these cases go forward, this is a leap forward, folks, not a step.”
During jury selection last week, potential jurors were asked about their beliefs regarding Meta’s role in the youth mental health crisis. While many acknowledged the company’s contribution, they also pointed to parental responsibility and broader societal issues, such as climate change, as factors affecting children’s mental health.
This trial marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the responsibilities of social media companies in safeguarding the well-being of young users. As the case unfolds, its implications could resonate far beyond the courtroom, potentially reshaping how social media platforms operate in relation to minors.
According to The Associated Press, the outcome of this trial could set a precedent for future legal actions against social media companies regarding child safety.