A federal trial that could reshape how Instagram and Facebook operate for young users got underway in Oakland, California, with jury selection beginning on 12 August 2026, according to a national morning news program. The case, brought by a coalition of 30 US states in 2023, accuses Meta of violating federal and state privacy laws by designing Instagram and Facebook to exploit young users. Opening statements are scheduled for 18 August 2026, and the states are seeking sweeping operational changes alongside massive financial penalties.
The lawsuit was originally filed by attorneys general from states including California and New York, alleging widespread violations of children's privacy protections. According to a wire service report, the first four states presenting claims in this federal trial are California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, representing the broader 30-state coalition. The states claim Meta also violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by failing to secure verifiable parental consent for users under 13, according to court records reviewed by a legal news outlet.
What changes are the states demanding?
The states want Meta to overhaul core features of Instagram and Facebook that they say are engineered to maximize engagement among minors. Their demands include ending visible "like" counts, eliminating infinite scroll, and introducing parental verification systems for teenage account holders.
Beyond these headline changes, the states are also pushing Meta to alter its recommendation algorithms, which they describe as "dopamine-manipulating," and to remove image filters that distort a user's appearance. They further want the company to bar users from creating multiple accounts and to end ephemeral content features such as Instagram Stories, which disappear after a set period.
All of these mechanisms are woven into the everyday experience of using Meta's platforms today. The states argue they exist specifically to keep young users, including children, engaged for as long and as often as possible, and that Meta has made it deliberately difficult for teenagers to reduce their usage through tactics like persistent notifications urging them back onto the apps.
Why does this trial matter for Meta financially?
The scale of the financial demand is unprecedented. While earlier reporting characterized the states' ask as "upwards of $1 trillion," a more recent figure reported by puts the states' sought penalties at $1.4 trillion, a sum Meta itself has said is close to its total market capitalization. Meta's market value currently stands at roughly $1.5 trillion, meaning a verdict anywhere near that figure could be existential for the company's finances.
By allegedly targeting child users, the states argue, Meta "chose to exploit" young people to build its user base and expand its advertising business. Meta has firmly rejected these characterizations.
"We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people," a company spokeswoman said in a statement.
How has the judge shaped the case so far?
The trial is being heard by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, a chief federal judge in California with nearly two decades on the bench, previously known for presiding over the high-profile Elon Musk v Sam Altman dispute. Her reputation for being incisive and direct has followed her into this case.
Before the trial even began, Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued rulings favorable to the states. On 16 August 2026, she resolved two pretrial disputes in their favor, according to a regional newspaper's court coverage, handing the states procedural advantages heading into opening statements. Separately, a federal appeals court denied Meta's request to delay the proceedings, which had been set to begin on 12 August, allowing the case to move forward as scheduled, per .
The trial itself is expected to last approximately seven weeks, according to , meaning a verdict would likely not arrive until well into the autumn. The case forms part of a much larger legal battle: more than 3,000 related lawsuits are active within a broader multidistrict litigation effort against social media companies, according to Courthouse News.
What happened in the New Mexico case?
A recent ruling in New Mexico offers a preview of what a loss for Meta elsewhere could look like. Judge Bryan Biedscheid ordered Meta to pay a collective $942 million and to implement changes closely mirroring those the 30 states are now demanding nationally.
Those court-ordered changes included eliminating like counts for users under 18, banning the sending or receiving of nudity by teenagers on the platforms, and restricting push notifications to specific hours of the day. Judge Biedscheid went further, declaring Meta a "public nuisance," comparing the company to a polluting factory whose output caused "harmful effects" across an entire population. Meta has said it intends to appeal the decision.
Notably, a separate New Mexico ruling issued on 6 August 2026 ordered Meta to pay $567 million over child-safety failures, according to an earlier BBC report — a figure that differs from the $942 million cited elsewhere, suggesting the penalties stem from separate proceedings within the same litigation. Either way, the New Mexico rulings add mounting financial and reputational pressure on Meta just as the Oakland trial gets underway.
While Judge Biedscheid's order applies only within New Mexico, a loss for Meta in the 30-state case would almost certainly force platform changes across the entire United States, since the states involved represent nearly two-thirds of the country's population.
What evidence links social media to youth mental health harm?
"Like" counts have been embedded in Meta's platforms since the company's earliest days as Facebook, when it operated a single service. Today, likes remain the dominant way users engage with content across nearly every major platform, yet they are increasingly scrutinized as a driver of negative emotional outcomes, particularly among adolescents.
Kaley, a young woman who won her own lawsuit against Meta earlier this year, testified that she created dozens of accounts across YouTube and Instagram to generate likes on her own posts, seeking validation and engagement from other users. She was nine years old at the time and said she was later diagnosed with depression at age ten.
Research conducted over the past several years has shown that engagement metrics like counts can fuel feelings of rejection and depression among teenagers. In the states' case against Meta — during which the company has reportedly turned over more than 2 million internal documents — lawyers have cited Meta's own research showing that like counts drive "social comparison," the psychological act of measuring one's self-worth against others' curated images.
That internal research reportedly linked social comparison on Instagram to "increased loneliness, worse body image, and negative mood or affect." Judge Biedscheid's New Mexico order, the first instance of a social media company being formally labeled a "public nuisance," framed over a decade of Meta's platform design as a contributing factor to a growing youth mental health crisis, both in that state and nationally.
How does this fit into the wider legal pressure on Meta?
The Oakland trial is one of several fronts in an escalating legal and regulatory campaign targeting Meta over youth safety. In Tennessee, a separate seven-week trial opened with the state accusing Meta of ignoring its own internal research on Instagram's impact on teenagers, a claim Meta has countered by asserting it has been transparent and has worked to address platform risks.
In Europe, regulators have also intervened directly, with the European Union warning Meta to alter allegedly "addictive" features on Facebook and Instagram or face fines of up to 6% of its global revenue, citing risks to youth mental health and inadequate existing safeguards. Separately, a Los Angeles jury earlier this year found Meta and Google liable for a young woman's social media addiction, apportioning 70% of responsibility to Meta and 30% to YouTube. Not every case has resulted in continued litigation, however — a Florida teenager recently dropped his addiction lawsuit against Meta after settling similar claims against TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube.
What happens next?
Opening statements in the Oakland trial are set for 18 August 2026, with the proceedings expected to run for roughly seven weeks, meaning any verdict would likely not emerge until well into the autumn. Judge Gonzalez Rogers has already signaled she is willing to issue consequential pretrial rulings, having decided two disputes in the states' favor on 16 August, which suggests further procedural decisions could shape the evidence presented to the jury before deliberations begin.
Should the states prevail, Meta could be compelled to redesign core features of Instagram and Facebook nationwide, extending far beyond the narrower New Mexico ruling, and facing financial exposure that Meta itself has acknowledged could approach the size of its entire market valuation.
- Jury selection began on 12 August 2026 in Oakland, California, with opening statements scheduled for 18 August.
- The federal trial's first four plaintiff states are California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, part of a 30-state coalition.
- reports the states are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties, a figure close to Meta's market capitalization.
- A related New Mexico ruling on 6 August 2026 ordered Meta to pay $567 million over child-safety failures.
- The trial is expected to last about seven weeks, with more than 3,000 related cases active in a broader multidistrict litigation.
