Meta is arguing that it took teen safety seriously, that its features are ordinary product design, and that the states have not shown anyone was harmed. Neither account has been tested to a verdict, and the trial is expected to run about six weeks.
What the States Allege
Attorneys for California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are leading the case for all 29 states. They allege Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to hook children and teenagers using features such as infinite scrolling and the “like” button, and that the company misled consumers about how safe the platforms were for young users.
All 29 states also claim Meta improperly collected and used children’s personal data in violation of federal law. The states have asked the court to order nationwide changes, including age restrictions and the elimination of infinite scroll.
Meta has said penalties could reach as high as $1.4 trillion, near its market capitalization. Attorneys general have not specified a figure but indicated at a hearing that the amount could be closer to $200 billion.
How Meta Is Responding
Meta denies the allegations. In his opening statement, attorney Paul Schmidt argued the company was sensitive to the risks facing teenagers, sought to address them, and did not deceive the public.
A company spokesperson said ahead of arguments that the states’ claims are unsubstantiated and that Meta stands by its record of building protections for teens.
The company’s position runs along three lines. It says the states have offered no proof that anyone in their states was actually misled.
It says features the states describe as harmful, such as the ability to hold an additional Instagram account, are ordinary and benign.
And it argues the case would penalize one company for challenges facing the industry and society as a whole rather than for anything specific it did.
On cross examination, Meta attorney Brian Stekloff asked the whistleblower about the quality of colleagues he worked with and whether he had solved any of the safety problems he worked on, an approach that underscored how difficult these problems are for anyone to solve.
The witness answered that his teams were full of qualified people he respected, and that none of the risk issues had been solved. CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are expected to testify.
What the Whistleblower Told the Court
Arturo Bejar, who worked on safety at Facebook from 2009 to 2015 and returned as a consultant on Instagram’s wellbeing team from 2019 to 2021, testified that safety was not a meaningful priority and that the company repeatedly chose policies favoring usership and revenue.
He said he had seen internal Meta studies surveying users, including teenagers, about harmful content and negative feelings tied to the platforms.
Bejar told the court that features including video autoplay, “like” counters and infinite scroll are inherently unsafe for teenagers, and that safety tools such as Instagram’s quiet mode fall short because they are optional settings rather than defaults.
He compared it to having to switch on an airbag each time you get into a car. He also addressed a 2021 post in which Zuckerberg said it was not true that Meta prioritizes profit over safety and wellbeing.
Bejar said that based on his experience at the company, the statement was not accurate. Meta disputes his characterization of its culture and priorities.
What the Court Has Not Decided
It is worth being precise about what this trial has and has not established. An eight person jury is hearing the case in an advisory capacity, and U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will decide liability.
No finding has been made against Meta in this case. Testimony from any witness, including a former employee, is one side’s evidence and is subject to challenge.
If the judge does find Meta liable, she could impose civil penalties and order changes to Facebook and Instagram. If she does not, the platforms continue as they are.
Why Design Is the Legal Question
This case is not about the content people post. It is about the features the company built into its products, and whether those design choices themselves crossed a line. That distinction is what makes the trial unusual, and it is why the result could affect thousands of similar lawsuits either way.
What This Means for Mental Health Treatment Seekers
Nothing in this trial changes what help is available today, and no verdict will diagnose a specific teenager. If a young person in your household is showing signs of anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, withdrawal from friends, or device use that is disrupting sleep and school, those are reasons to seek an assessment now rather than wait on a court.
Adolescent mental health treatment is a distinct specialty, and programs that involve families tend to keep young people engaged.
Coverage questions are worth asking early. Many plans cover adolescent behavioral health evaluations, and verifying benefits before the first appointment removes one common barrier.
Finding the Right Rehab
If you are comparing options, focus on programs with adolescent specialization, family programming, and treatment for co-occurring conditions.
Ask about clinician credentials, what intake looks like, and how the program communicates with parents. Verify that any facility you consider is properly licensed.
Rehab.com’s directory includes verified treatment centers you can compare by location, level of care, and insurance accepted. Call
800-985-8516
( 
Sponsored Helpline )
to speak with a treatment advisor.
