For years, the conversation around children and social media has mostly sounded like a warning from parents: You’re spending too much time on your phone. But what if the problem is bigger than screen time? What if the platforms themselves are designed to make it difficult to put the phone down in the first place? That is the question sitting at the centre of one of Meta’s biggest legal battles yet. The company behind Instagram and Facebook is currently facing a landmark federal trial in Oakland, California, where 29 US states have accused it of designing its platforms in ways that encourage excessive use among young people, downplaying the risks and mishandling the data of children under 13.
And honestly, this case is worth paying attention to even if you have never opened Instagram yourself. Because at its heart, it is asking a much bigger question: How much responsibility should social media companies have for what their products do to children?
So, What Is Meta Actually Being Accused Of?
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2023, argues that Meta knew its platforms could negatively affect young users but continued using features that encouraged them to stay online for longer.
Think about the things that make Instagram so difficult to leave: the endless scroll, notifications, likes, recommendations and algorithms that keep serving you the next thing before you have even decided whether you want to see it. The states argue that these aren’t simply neutral design choices when the users on the other side of the screen are children and teenagers.
The case also goes beyond the amount of time young people spend online. The states allege that Meta collected and used information belonging to children under 13 without proper parental consent, potentially violating federal child privacy law. Meta, of course, strongly denies the allegations. Its lawyers argue that the company has invested in safety measures, worked with parents and experts, and actively removes accounts belonging to children below the platform’s minimum age of 13. So this isn’t simply a case of ‘social media is bad, Meta is bad.’ The court has to determine whether Meta actually crossed a legal line in how it designed, marketed and managed its platforms.
Why Is This Case Such A Big Deal?
Because this isn’t one family taking a company to court. Twenty-nine states are involved, with California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey leading the current trial. The proceedings are expected to run for several weeks, and the outcome could determine how much responsibility technology companies have for the consequences of their product design.
The potential financial consequences are obviously enormous, although the numbers being thrown around need some context. Meta has previously warned that penalties could theoretically reach around $1.4 trillion, while California Attorney General Rob Bonta has made clear that the states are not asking for $1.4 trillion. The actual financial penalties, if any, would ultimately be determined by the court.
But money may not even be the biggest story here.
The states are also asking for changes to the way Facebook and Instagram operate, including stronger age restrictions and the removal or alteration of features such as infinite scroll, certain notifications and other engagement-focused elements. They have also sought changes to how children’s data is handled. In other words, a loss for Meta could mean more than writing a very, very large cheque. It could mean changing the product itself.
Then Came The Whistleblower Testimony
One of the most striking parts of the trial so far has been the testimony of former Meta engineering director Arturo Béjar.
Béjar worked at Facebook from 2009 to 2015 and later returned as a contractor working on safety between 2019 and 2021. He has previously spoken to Congress about the problems he saw inside the company. During this trial, he told the court that safety was often treated as secondary to metrics such as how many people were using the products and how long they stayed on them.
He also made a particularly serious allegation about children under 13, describing Instagram’s approach as essentially “don’t ask, don’t tell.” According to his testimony, he encountered tens of thousands of under-13 users and believed the company had sophisticated technology capable of detecting suspicious accounts, but lacked sufficient goals or measurements for identifying children below the permitted age.
And then there was the issue of harmful content. Béjar told the court that internal survey data suggested teenagers were encountering graphic or violent material at rates dramatically higher than the figures Meta publicly reported. He argued that measuring only how much prohibited content exists does not necessarily capture how much harm users are actually experiencing.
These are allegations from a witness for the states, not findings that Meta has been proven guilty of. But they are significant because the entire case revolves around what Meta knew, what it measured and what it chose to do with that information.
What About Meta’s Safety Features?
This is where the argument gets interesting.
Meta has introduced several tools intended to make its platforms safer for young users, including restrictions and wellbeing features. But Béjar questioned whether some of these tools actually work as effectively as they should. One example he discussed was Instagram’s ‘Take a Break’ feature. His criticism was pretty simple: if a safety setting requires the user to actively switch it on, and can then be dismissed almost instantly, how effective is it really for a teenager who is already struggling to step away?
His argument was that meaningful safety measures should not depend entirely on a young user having the discipline to activate them in the first place.
That raises a question that goes beyond Instagram: Should children be expected to regulate their own use of products that are specifically built to keep them engaged? And that might be one of the most important questions to come out of this entire case.
Meta Says It Has Been Working On Child Safety
There is, naturally, another side to this. Meta has rejected the states’ allegations and says the evidence will show that it has taken youth safety seriously. Its lawyers have argued that the company has conducted research, worked with parents and experts and introduced measures intended to protect young people.
Meta has also challenged the idea that its platforms can simply be labelled “addictive” in the way the states suggest, arguing that social media addiction is not a formally recognised psychiatric condition.
The company also says that enforcing age restrictions and moderating billions of interactions across its platforms is an incredibly complicated task. And that is fair too. Keeping every under-13 user off a platform used by billions is not exactly a switch you can flip. But the states’ argument is essentially that difficulty does not equal impossibility — particularly when a company has the technology, resources and financial incentive to improve the system.
And This Isn’t Just About Meta
This is probably the part parents, teachers and frankly anyone who has watched a teenager disappear into TikTok, Instagram or YouTube for three hours should pay attention to. Meta is simply first in line.
Other social media companies, including TikTok, Snap and YouTube, are facing their own legal and political scrutiny over the effects of their platforms on young users. There are also thousands of lawsuits involving social media companies, brought by families, school districts and others.
So whatever happens in this courtroom could potentially influence what happens outside it. If Meta is forced to redesign certain features, other platforms could face pressure to do the same. If the states succeed in establishing that certain product decisions can create legal liability, it could change how social media companies think about everything from algorithms to notifications.
But What Does This Mean For Parents?
While the lawyers battle it out in California, parents don’t really have the luxury of waiting for a verdict. Because whether Meta is ultimately found legally responsible or not, the underlying issue isn’t disappearing: children are growing up with technology that is designed to compete aggressively for their attention. And that means parental vigilance still matters.
Knowing what apps your child is using is one thing. Knowing what they are actually seeing is another. Checking privacy settings, understanding who can contact them, talking about inappropriate content and making it normal for them to come to you when something online makes them uncomfortable can make a difference.
Most importantly, the conversation cannot just be “Put your phone away.” We also need to teach children why certain apps are so difficult to put down in the first place.
This Could Change More Than Instagram
The Meta trial is still ongoing, so there is no final verdict yet. But already, it has pushed a conversation that has been happening quietly for years into a federal courtroom: when does keeping people engaged become exploiting their attention?
And when the people being kept engaged are children, should the rules be different?
For me, that is what makes this case bigger than Meta. It is about whether the technology we hand to children should be allowed to grow around them unchecked -or whether the companies building it need to take greater responsibility for what happens on the other side of the screen.
Because maybe the real question isn’t whether kids should have social media. Maybe it’s whether social media, as it exists right now, is actually built with kids in mind.
Sources: Tribune, AP News, BBC, Reuters, CNBC, ABC News