Meta returns to an American federal court today in a case that could mark a turning point in the history of social networks. Twenty-nine states they accuse the company by Mark Zuckerberg to have designed Facebook and Instagram with features designed to encourage compulsive use, especially among children and adolescents.
The potential request for sanctions arrives up to 1,400 billion dollars. But the real goal of the lawsuit may be even more important than money: forcing Meta to change the way its platforms work.
Before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the cause born in 2023 reaches the decisive moment: six weeks of hearings in which the direct questioning of Zuckerberg is also expected.
What the accusation disputes
The heart of the lawsuit, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, is not about content posted by users, but the very design of the platforms. Infinite scroll, video autoplay, push notifications, beauty filters and optimized algorithms to maximize dwell time.
These are the functions that, according to the states, Meta built knowing that they would generate compulsive behavior in minors, in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and state consumer protection laws.
It is a precise legal strategy. Concentrating the protests on design choices and commercial practices of Meta, the States seek to reduce the burden of defense based on Section 230which normally limits platforms’ liability for third-party content.
Bonta put it bluntly: “Meta designed a product that was dangerous for young users, knew it was dangerous, and lied to children, families and communities about how dangerous it was,” the Wall Street Journal reports. Meta counters that it has no evidence that anyone in their states was actually deceived, and accuses states of wanting to punish it for industry-wide challenges, such as age verification.
Among the heaviest requests is that of delete all personal data collected on minors under 13 years of agealong with the algorithms and models trained on that data. A request that touches a raw nerve: Meta generates 98% of its revenues from advertising and is financing an investment plan on artificial intelligence that could reach 145 billion dollars this year, with a capital expenditure of over 30 billion in the second quarter alone.
The measure would be potentially relevant because it would concern data and systems trained on data from under 13s, in a phase in which Meta depends almost entirely on advertising and is accelerating investments in AI infrastructure.
The figure of 1,400 billion dollars
The number that transformed this cause into a global case is that of $1.4 trillion in possible fines. However, it is important to make a clarification: this is not a sum already requested as certain compensation, nor even a figure that the court has established.
It is an estimate of maximum exposure developed in the context of the proceedings on the basis of the calculation criteria proposed by the States and reported by Meta in its judicial documents.
The figure derives from multiplying the sanctions provided for by the individual regulations by the number of violations considered. It is therefore more correct to talk about potential exposure of up to 1,400 billion dollars, not a 1,400 billion compensation already quantified by the judge.
It is a distinction that is anything but secondary, also because a sum of this size is considered by legal observers to be extremely unlikely in its entirety. But the data serves to make the scale of the clash clear: the amount was indicated by Meta as close to its stock market capitalisation.
And there is another fundamental peculiarity. A traditional jury with the final say on the verdict will not decide. Judge Rogers has set up an advisory jury, made up of eight people, whose opinion will guide the final decision. The sentence will still be up to the judge. The trial is expected to last several weeks.
Because this cause is different from the others
The historical value of the proceeding does not only lie in the extent of the possible sanction. The fundamental difference is that states do not simply ask to be compensated for damage that has already occurred. They also aim to achieve structural changes in the product.
Among the measures discussed in the proceedings are interventions on age verification systemson the ways in which minors’ data is collected and used and on the design features that encourage prolonged use.
States have also indicated the possibility of intervening on functions such as infinite scrolling and how algorithms recommend content to young users. And this is precisely the point that makes the case potentially much more important than a normal damages lawsuit.
If a court ruled that certain product features constitute illegal practices when used against minors, the issue would no longer be just how much Meta should pay, but how Meta should redesign Instagram and Facebook in the future.
The dangerous precedents
Today’s trial does not arise in a vacuum. In March, a Los Angeles jury already sentenced Meta and Google to 6 million dollars compensation for negligence in the design of the platforms, in a case that became the first test case (the so-called bellwether) for hundreds of similar lawsuits pending in California.
Also around the same time, in New Mexico, another jury sentenced Meta to 375 million dollars for deceiving consumers about the security of its platforms, a figure to which others have added 567 million established by the judge destined for a youth mental health fund, after the ruling “public nuisance”.
Even the European Commission initiated preliminary proceedings against Meta per in July alleged violation of the Digital Services Actfocusing on exactly the same mechanisms: the so-called addictive design.
According to Brussels, Meta did not adequately evaluate or mitigate the risks that the architecture of Instagram and Facebook poses to the psychological well-being of minor users and vulnerable adults.
Not all time spent on social media is an addiction
The most important part of the scientific literature is perhaps precisely that which calls for caution. There is no simple equation that says more social media automatically means more depression or more addiction.
A big one umbrella review published in 2024 analyzed numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the relationship between social media and adolescent mental health, concluding that the effects depend on the type of use, individual characteristics and the design of the platforms. The authors also point out that research is hampered by the platforms’ limited data availability.
Even more significant is a review published on Nature Reviews Psychology in 2024. The authors note that the evidence on the relationship between social media and adolescent mental health is mixed and often inconsistentbut they also explain how the neurobiological and social changes of adolescence can make this phase of life particularly sensitive to the mechanisms of social approval, comparison with peers and emotional regulation.
Social media’s “Big Tobacco” moment
Now the question coming from the courts and regulators is much more uncomfortable: what happens when engagement optimization conflicts with user well-being, especially if that user is a child or teenager?
It is no coincidence that several observers have begun to compare this phase to that experienced by the tobacco industry in the 1990s, when lawsuits ended up forcing an entire sector to change commercial practices even before a specific law intervened. Meta stock has already lost more than 24% in the last year on the stock market, and the company alone spent $2.4 billion on legal costs in the second quarter of 2026.
Whether the Oakland trial ends with a huge compensation or a smaller sum, the combined pressure of court cases in the United States and regulation in Europe it is already producing an effect that goes beyond the courtroom: Meta, but also Google, Snapchat and TikTok, now find themselves having to publicly justify every single design choice. And if the architecture of the platforms is truly no longer considered neutral, the most significant change could come even before a final ruling.
