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

Jameson Lopp's BIP-110 Postmortem: Bitcoin Is Driven by Game Theory, Not Morality

Jameson Lopp's analysis concludes that BIP-110, a proposal to restrict arbitrary data (like inscriptions) on Bitcoin, failed due to economic and technical realities, not moral arguments. The proposal, championed by Luke Dashjr and others, aimed to "cleanse" the chain but never reached its 55% miner activation threshold. Upon its forced signaling deadline in August, only the OCEAN pool (with ~1% hash rate) supported it, creating a short-lived fork that quickly died as miners faced unredeemable block rewards. Lopp's earlier predictions about its economic infeasibility were proven correct. Technically, BIP-110 was flawed; workarounds to embed data compliant with its rules were demonstrated almost immediately, proving it couldn't achieve its stated goal. The debate often devolved into moralistic rhetoric, with supporters accusing opponents of supporting child exploitation material—a tactic Lopp criticizes as ineffective for building consensus. Lopp argues Bitcoin is driven by incentives and game theory, not morality. Past forks like Bitcoin Cash promised economic benefits, while BIP-110 offered only restrictions and reduced miner fees, gaining no substantial support from major economic players. He predicts the "puritans" behind the failed fork will continue complaining but their new chain will remain insignificant. The episode reaffirms that attempting to censor data on a permissionless, anti-censorship network like Bitcoin is a futile battle.

marsbit29m ago

Jameson Lopp's BIP-110 Postmortem: Bitcoin Is Driven by Game Theory, Not Morality

marsbit29m ago

Tokenization Scale Soars to $4.3 Billion, But Why Did Securitize Incur a $5.5 Million Loss?

Securitize's first quarterly report post-IPO reveals a paradox: while its tokenized assets under management hit a record $4.3 billion (up 16% YoY) and platform trading volume surged 147% to $5.3 billion, total revenue fell 5% to $14.4 million. Tokenization revenue specifically dropped ~12% to $7.8 million, leading to an adjusted EBITDA loss of $5.5 million. CFO Francisco Flores explained that most trading volume is not yet monetized, with the majority of tokenization revenue still coming from one-time projects like new protocol integrations. In contrast, asset servicing revenue, a more recurring stream, grew slightly to $6.6 million. The company has lowered its full-year revenue guidance to $70-$80 million from an initial projection of $110 million. Industry experts note this highlights a structural challenge for the tokenization sector. Scaling assets on-chain doesn't automatically scale a profitable business model. Current implementations often rely on costly, customized projects for each new asset or jurisdiction. The future, they argue, lies in building standardized infrastructure that generates recurring "infrastructure revenue" from post-issuance activities like compliance, distributions, and secondary trading—similar to enterprise software. Analysts caution against misinterpreting high trading volumes as indicative of a mature fee-based model, as Securitize's broad volume metric includes many non-monetized actions. The key test for the industry is whether adding billions in new assets can generate sustainable revenue without constant new custom projects.

marsbit32m ago

Tokenization Scale Soars to $4.3 Billion, But Why Did Securitize Incur a $5.5 Million Loss?

marsbit32m ago

The Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence

**Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence** Artificial intelligence (AI) is an era filled with paradoxes, which we navigate as we advance. **1. The Prediction Paradox** AI experts, from pioneers like Marvin Minsky to contemporary figures like Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis, have a history of inaccurate forecasts regarding AI's capabilities and timelines, such as achieving human-level machine intelligence or surpassing radiologists. Predictions about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) vary wildly between optimistic entrepreneurs and skeptical academics, highlighting the inherent unpredictability of technological futures. **2. The Employment Quantification Paradox** Despite numerous studies from institutions like the OECD, IMF, and McKinsey attempting to quantify AI's impact on jobs, estimates of affected employment range from 0.4% to 67%, revealing vast inconsistencies. This paradox arises because isolating AI's effect from other economic, social, and technological factors is virtually impossible, and forecasts depend on static assumptions about a dynamically evolving technology. **3. The Productivity Paradox** While AI is a transformative General Purpose Technology, significant productivity growth has not yet materialized in major economies like the EU and has only matched historical averages in the US. This disconnect between rapid innovation and slow productivity gains, reminiscent of the "Solow Paradox" from the computer age, is often explained by time lags. History shows it takes decades for such technologies to diffuse and trigger complementary innovations that boost productivity. **4. The Data Value Paradox** Data is hailed as the "new oil" and critical for AI, yet its economic value is paradoxical. Its worth is realized only in use, not in straightforward trade. Despite policy emphasis and initiatives for data asset recognition on corporate balance sheets in China, the monetized value remains negligible—accounting for only about 0.06% of major telecom operators' total assets—highlighting the gap between perceived utility and financial valuation. **5. The Industrial Revolution Paradox** For decades, nearly every major new technology, from the internet and nanotechnology to blockchain and now AI, has been proclaimed as the driver of a "Fourth Industrial Revolution." This constant reassignment suggests prior labels were premature. True industrial revolutions are typically identified in hindsight, not in real-time. Furthermore, the coexistence of such a proclaimed transformative revolution with ongoing economic crises would be historically anomalous. Whether AI truly defines a new industrial revolution remains a narrative for the future to decide.

marsbit35m ago

The Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence

marsbit35m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片