Meta on Trial in the U.S.: 29 States Accuse Company of Harming Children

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2026-08-20Last updated on 2026-08-20

Abstract

On August 18, 2026, a trial against Meta began in a federal court in Oakland, California. A coalition of 29 states, led by California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, accuses the company of intentionally designing addictive features for Facebook and Instagram, concealing known risks to minors' mental health, and collecting data from children under 13 without parental consent. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and state consumer protection laws. State prosecutors argue Meta exploited young users for profit, causing them physical and mental harm. Meta denies the allegations, stating a long-term commitment to youth safety and contesting direct links between social media use and declining teen well-being. The plaintiffs seek financial compensation and injunctions to force Meta to remove features like infinite scroll and visible likes, implement time limits for minors, and delete data of under-13 users. The bench trial, presided over by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, is expected to last 6–8 weeks. Testimony from former and current employees, including former staffer Arturo Béjar, has begun. The outcome could set a significant precedent for regulating how tech companies interact with minors and handle their data, potentially influencing future lawsuits against other platforms. The case reflects a broader regulatory shift, examining how algorithms and AI systems shape child behavior, not just platform content.

On August 18, 2026, hearings began in the Oakland court (Northern District of California) in the case against Meta* — the extremist company is accused of intentionally designing features of Facebook and Instagram that encouraged teenagers and children to overuse the platforms, concealing known risks to minors' mental health, and collecting personal data from children under 13 without parental consent. The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of 29 states, with California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey acting as lead plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, Meta's actions violate the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and state consumer protection laws.

Positions of the Parties

California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated on August 17: "Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to keep children on the platforms as long as possible — to the point of causing physical and mental harm. Exploiting the most vulnerable users for corporate profit is not only immoral but illegal." Similar statements were made by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, and New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport.

In court filings, Meta indicated that the plaintiffs' calculations could theoretically lead to penalties of up to $1.4 trillion. Bonta clarified on August 18 that the states are not demanding this exact sum: "To be clear: we are not seeking $1.4 trillion." According to him, this is a maximum theoretical estimate based on the number of young platform users, and the actual amount of fines will be determined by the court.

Plaintiffs' Demands

In addition to compensation, the plaintiffs are seeking court injunctions, including:

  • removal of features that encourage prolonged platform use — such as infinite scroll, visible 'likes,' and recommendation algorithms;

  • implementation of usage time limits for minors;

  • deletion of data belonging to children under 13.

Meta's Position

The company denies the allegations. Meta states that the evidence will show its long-term commitment to supporting young users, and that research does not confirm a direct link between social media use and a decline in teen well-being.

Course of the Proceedings

The case is being presided over by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; the jury plays an advisory role, with the final decision resting with the judge. The trial is scheduled to last 6–8 weeks. Former company employee Arturo Béjar has already testified, speaking about Meta's internal culture and research on harm to teenagers. Testimony from Instagram head Adam Mosseri and other current and former company employees is expected; the question of calling Mark Zuckerberg to testify remains open.

The Oakland trial has become one of the largest proceedings against Meta concerning child protection on social media. The outcome will influence how technology companies structure their engagement with underage users and handle their data.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers' decision could set a precedent for similar lawsuits against other platforms, as COPPA and state consumer protection laws remain key tools for regulating the collection of children's data.

AI Opinion

Analysis shows that the case against Meta fits into a broader wave of legal claims against technology companies for their impact on minors' mental health. Concurrently with the Oakland proceedings, OpenAI recently released a separate version of ChatGPT for teenagers amidst lawsuits where plaintiffs link the deaths of minors to a lack of protective mechanisms in chatbots. This coincidence suggests that regulatory pressure is shifting from the question of "what social networks publish" to "how algorithms and AI systems shape a child's behavior" — the COPPA law, enacted in 1998 for static web pages, is being tested against generative and recommendation systems of a completely different scale.

The financial aspect of the case rarely makes headlines: even partial satisfaction of the claims could change the architecture of recommendation feeds not only at Meta but also at its competitors, who follow its product decisions. Will the liability of technology companies remain limited to social networks, or will the next wave of lawsuits target AI assistants and gaming platforms?

*Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, is recognized as an extremist organization and is banned in Russia.

Related Questions

QWhat are the main accusations brought by the coalition of 29 US states against Meta in the lawsuit?

AThe lawsuit accuses Meta of intentionally designing features for Facebook and Instagram that encouraged excessive use by teens and children, concealing known risks to minors' mental health, and collecting personal data from children under 13 without parental consent. These actions allegedly violate the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and state consumer protection laws.

QWhat are the key injunctive relief demands that the coalition of states is seeking from the court?

AThe states are seeking court orders to require Meta to: 1) Remove features that encourage prolonged platform use, such as infinite scroll, visible 'likes,' and recommendation algorithms. 2) Introduce time usage limits for minors. 3) Delete data belonging to children under the age of 13.

QHow does Meta respond to the accusations in the lawsuit?

AMeta denies the allegations. The company states that the evidence will demonstrate its long-term commitment to supporting young users and claims that research does not confirm a direct link between social media use and a decline in adolescent well-being.

QWhat is the broader regulatory trend suggested by the analysis of this case against Meta?

AThe analysis suggests regulatory pressure is shifting from focusing on 'what social media companies publish' to 'how algorithms and AI systems shape children's behavior.' It questions whether laws like COPPA, enacted in 1998 for static web pages, are sufficient to regulate generative and recommender systems of a completely different scale.

QWhat potential industry-wide impact could the outcome of this trial have, according to the article's analysis?

AEven partial fulfillment of the lawsuit's demands could change the architecture of recommender feeds not only for Meta but also for its competitors, who often follow its product decisions. The analysis also questions if the next wave of lawsuits will extend beyond social media to target AI assistants and gaming platforms.

Related Reads

Haiwei Huaxin's Official Seal Seized by Over a Hundred People, High-Stakes Corporate Battle's 'Nuclear Deterrence' in Action Again

On August 18th, Haowei Huaxin, a semiconductor firm specializing in gallium arsenide and gallium nitride wafers, reported that over a hundred individuals forcibly entered its offices and seized the company's official seals from a safe, including the corporate, contract, and party committee seals. The incident is the latest escalation in a protracted control dispute. Haowei Huaxin, established in 2010, was originally a joint venture. Control became contested after 2021 when Zhenwei Financial Holding injected capital, becoming the largest shareholder (34.01%), while former parent Haite High-Tech's stake was diluted to 33.79%. An agreed-upon governance structure collapsed, leading to mutual accusations. Haite claimed it was locked out of the subsidiary's premises, while also alleging improper management like livestock being kept on the chip fabrication site. After state-owned Qingdao Haiyue Holdings took over Zhenwei's stake in 2023, Haite accused it of illegally seizing control. Despite Haite winning several legal battles in 2024-2026, which affirmed its rights to nominate directors and the chairman, it failed to regain physical control or recover the seals. The stakes are high: market valuations for Haite's stake in Haowei Huaxin are estimated between 3.7 to 5 billion USD, yet it is only valued at about 83 million USD on Haite's books. Losing control effectively jeopardizes a significant portion of Haite's value. In response to the seal seizure, Haite framed it as a "shareholder rights protection" action agreed upon by five shareholders. This mirrors a pattern in Chinese corporate disputes where seizing physical seals becomes a tactic to paralyze the opponent's daily operations, seen in past conflicts at companies like Dangdang and Bitmain. However, such actions don't resolve underlying ownership issues; the opposing party can report the seals stolen, declare them void, and apply for new ones, albeit with significant delay. The incident underscores how fragile corporate governance can devolve into physical confrontations over symbols of authority, with control ultimately determined by law and shareholding, not possession of a seal.

marsbit24m ago

Haiwei Huaxin's Official Seal Seized by Over a Hundred People, High-Stakes Corporate Battle's 'Nuclear Deterrence' in Action Again

marsbit24m ago

Bernstein Interprets MRNA's 177% Surge: What's Fundamentals and What's Hype?

Bernstein's analysis of Moderna's 177% stock surge following positive Phase 3 results for its individualized neoantigen therapy (INT) in melanoma distinguishes fundamental drivers from market speculation. The clinical breakthrough is real: the INTerpath-001 trial met its primary and key secondary endpoints, providing crucial validation for mRNA technology in oncology beyond infectious diseases. However, Bernstein argues the magnitude of the stock move cannot be justified by this single trial's fundamentals alone. The surge was amplified by three key factors: 1) A re-rating of Moderna's mRNA platform potential for expansion into other cancers, 2) A massive short squeeze, given ~15% of shares were sold short pre-announcement, and 3) The compelling "cancer vaccine" narrative that fueled broader investor enthusiasm. While the melanoma success is significant, Bernstein cautions that replication in lung, kidney, and bladder cancers—which have different immunogenicity—is not guaranteed. Furthermore, INT's commercial model faces challenges: it's a personalized treatment, not a mass-market vaccine, implying higher production costs and potential margin pressures despite a projected multi-billion dollar peak sales opportunity. The report also notes sector rotation, with some funds moving from crowded AI/semiconductor trades into defensive healthcare stocks, adding further momentum. In conclusion, Bernstein maintains a "Market-Perform" rating and a $45 price target, far below the post-surge price. It views the current valuation as pricing in an optimistic multi-cancer platform success and efficient commercialization that are yet to be proven. The clinical inflection point is clear, but the earnings inflection point awaits validation across future trials and commercial execution.

marsbit25m ago

Bernstein Interprets MRNA's 177% Surge: What's Fundamentals and What's Hype?

marsbit25m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片