- Twenty-nine US states are seeking up to $200 billion in damages from Meta.
- The case could force changes to features including recommendations, notifications and infinite scrolling.
- Meta denies the allegations and says the states’ financial demands are disproportionate.
Meta is facing one of its biggest challenges yet over a question that could affect the future of Facebook and Instagram: were the platforms designed to keep young users coming back?
A coalition of 29 US states has brought the company to trial in California, accusing Meta of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram in ways that encouraged addictive use among children and teenagers and harmed their mental health. The states are seeking as much as $200 billion in damages, while also calling for major changes to how the platforms operate.
Meta denies the allegations and has argued that the states have not proved their claims. The company says it has invested heavily in protecting young people online and has described the financial demands as disproportionate.
But the case goes beyond whether individual pieces of content are harmful. At its heart is the design of the platforms themselves — including the recommendation systems, notifications and other features that determine how long people stay and how often they return.
The algorithm is at the centre of the fight
The states argue that Meta knew its platforms could encourage compulsive use among young people but continued to rely on features that maximised engagement.
Among the features facing scrutiny are personalised recommendations, infinite scrolling, autoplay, push notifications and visible like counts. The states say such mechanisms can encourage teenagers to keep checking their feeds and repeatedly return to the platforms.
The legal challenge could therefore have consequences beyond a financial penalty.
The states are seeking changes that include stronger age verification, parental controls for teenagers, restrictions on notifications, changes to recommendation algorithms and limits on features such as disappearing posts and like counts for younger users.
That matters because engagement is central to Meta's business. The company makes the vast majority of its revenue from advertising, meaning changes that reduce the amount of time people spend on its platforms could eventually affect how much advertising Meta can sell.
Steven Murdoch, a professor at University College London, reportedly said there was a plausible route towards changes to Meta's algorithms across markets, although he did not expect every possible change to be devastating for the company.
The case is also being watched because the states involved represent nearly two-thirds of the US population. A ruling that requires significant changes for younger users could therefore create pressure for wider changes across Meta's platforms.
Could this become social media’s tobacco moment?
The legal strategy has drawn comparisons with the lawsuits against tobacco companies in the 1990s.
More than 40 US states eventually sued major tobacco companies over misleading advertising and the public health consequences of smoking. The dispute ended in a settlement under which the companies agreed to pay billions of dollars and change some of their marketing practices.
The comparison does not mean Meta is facing the same outcome. But the tobacco cases offer an example of how litigation can force an industry to change without destroying the companies involved.
Meta has already faced other major legal setbacks over child safety. Earlier this year, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable in a case involving a young claimant who argued that their platforms had been deliberately designed to encourage addictive use. The claimant was awarded $6 million.
In a separate New Mexico case, Meta was ordered to pay $567 million into an abatement fund after a jury found the company liable for violating the state's unfair practices law. Meta has disputed the findings and plans to appeal.
The latest case could go considerably further because it targets the design of Meta's core products and is being brought by a large coalition of states.
The potential financial exposure is enormous. The states are seeking $200 billion, while Meta has previously estimated that damages could reach $1.4 trillion, an amount the judge has described as unreasonable.
But the bigger risk for Meta may not be the final bill.
If the court orders changes to the way Facebook and Instagram recommend content, send notifications or encourage users to keep scrolling, it could affect the basic machinery that drives engagement on the platforms.
That is why the case matters beyond the courtroom. A ruling against Meta could set new expectations for how social media companies design products for children and teenagers, while also giving regulators in other countries a stronger argument for demanding similar changes.
The European Union is already pressing Meta over what it calls the “addictive design” of its platforms.
For now, Meta remains free to argue its case, and the allegations have not been proven. But the trial puts a much bigger question on the table than whether Facebook and Instagram are safe enough for children: how much responsibility should a technology company bear for designing a product that users find difficult to put down?
