Meta faces landmark US trial over alleged harm to children from Instagram, Facebook

Opening statements are set to begin Tuesday in a landmark US trial that could force Meta to make sweeping changes to Instagram and Facebook over allegations that it deliberately designed the platforms to encourage compulsive use among children and teenagers.

An eight-member advisory jury has been selected for the trial in federal court in Oakland, California. Proceedings before US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers are expected to last about seven weeks.

The case stems from a federal complaint originally filed in October 2023 by a bipartisan coalition of 33 state attorneys general.

The current proceeding involves 29 states. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey will present their state consumer-protection claims during the trial, while the coalition's joint federal claim under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, will also be considered.

The states accuse Meta of knowingly designing Facebook and Instagram with features intended to keep young users on the platforms for longer while misleading children and their parents about the risks.

They allege that features including infinite scrolling, notifications, "likes," visual filters and algorithmic recommendation systems encourage compulsive use and have contributed to mental and physical health problems among young people.

The lawsuit also accuses Meta of illegally collecting personal information from children under 13 without obtaining verifiable parental consent, as required by COPPA.

In June, Rogers found that Meta's notice and parental-consent procedures did not satisfy COPPA's requirements. The trial must still determine whether the law applied in the circumstances, including whether Meta knew particular users were under 13.

Meta denies wrongdoing and says it has spent years developing protections for younger users, including Teen Accounts, age-detection technology, parental supervision tools and restrictions on potentially harmful content.

The company has also invoked Section 230, which generally protects online platforms from liability for content posted by users, and the First Amendment. The judge has narrowed parts of the case but allowed the central design and misrepresentation claims to proceed.