Meta Rejects Claims It Designed Instagram and Facebook to Hook Children
Meta has rejected accusations that it deliberately designed Instagram and Facebook to keep children compulsively engaged, as a landmark federal trial over youth safety moved from years of legal filings into opening arguments and witness testimony in California.
The case, being heard in Oakland, brings together claims from a bipartisan coalition of 29 U.S. states. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are leading the state consumer-protection claims, while all 29 states accuse Meta of improperly collecting and using personal data belonging to children under 13.
In opening arguments on August 18, California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill alleged that Meta researched how young people's developing brains respond to rewards and social feedback and then designed products to increase engagement. The states say features including infinite scroll, likes and notifications encouraged excessive use while Meta publicly downplayed risks. These remain allegations being tested at trial.
Meta denied that account.
Company lawyer Paul Schmidt told the court that Meta did not set out to make Facebook or Instagram dangerous and argued that research does not establish a simple causal relationship between social-media use and poor adolescent wellbeing. Meta intends to point to years of safety work as evidence that the company has been trying to reduce risks rather than deliberately create them.
The states' first witness, former Meta engineering director Arturo Béjar, then put the company's internal safety culture under scrutiny.
Béjar testified that safety concerns were sometimes weakened as products moved through development. Discussing efforts to limit eating-disorder content, he said engineers had proposed stronger solutions but that those proposals were substantially reduced during internal review. He also testified that safety was not always incorporated at the beginning of new products such as Reels.
Meta disputes Béjar's wider characterisation of its safety practices.
The company has continued expanding protections for young users. In June, Meta announced that 13+ content settings were being rolled out globally across Instagram, Facebook and Messenger Teen Accounts, alongside AI-powered age-assurance measures and parental alerts for repeated searches involving suicide or self-harm.
Those current protections are likely to form an important part of Meta's defence as the states argue that significant safeguards came only after years of pressure.
The financial stakes are unusually high. Meta has said maximum theoretical penalties under the states' claims could reach approximately $1.4 trillion, while attorneys general have indicated a figure closer to $200 billion as a more plausible calculation. Neither figure is a judgment or fine already imposed.
The states are also seeking changes to the platforms themselves. Their proposals include stronger restrictions keeping children under 13 off Meta's apps, limits for younger users and changes to engagement features such as infinite scroll and likes.
An eight-person jury is hearing the case, but its verdict will be advisory. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately determine liability and, if Meta is found responsible, what penalties or product changes should follow.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri are expected to testify during proceedings scheduled to last about six weeks.
The outcome could reach well beyond Meta. TikTok, Snap and YouTube are also facing litigation over alleged harms to young users, meaning any court-ordered changes to Instagram or Facebook could influence how the wider social-media industry approaches youth-focused product design.
For now, the crucial distinction is that the states have presented serious allegations and an internal former employee has begun supporting parts of their case, but Meta denies wrongdoing and no liability has yet been determined.
