This week, in a federal courthouse in Oakland, California, the biggest tech trial in American history opened its doors. Twenty-nine state attorneys general began arguments against Meta Platforms — the company that owns Instagram and Facebook — seeking up to $1.4 trillion in damages and, more importantly, structural changes to how the platforms operate.
The core allegation is specific and damaging: that Meta knowingly designed Instagram and Facebook with features engineered to be as addictive as possible, that this design caused measurable harm to users, that the company's own internal research documented that harm, and that Meta suppressed or ignored those findings while publicly claiming to prioritize user safety.
Mark Zuckerberg will testify in person.
What the Trial Is Actually About
The media coverage of this lawsuit tends to center on harm to children — and children are central to the allegations. Meta is accused of illegally collecting data on users under 13 without parental consent, in violation of federal law, and of algorithmically targeting minors with content and engagement tactics their own research flagged as harmful.
But the addiction design argument — that Meta engineered its platforms to maximize engagement regardless of user wellbeing — is not a children-only claim. The infinite scroll, the red notification dots, the algorithmically personalized feed, the features that surface the most emotionally activating content: all of these affect every user, regardless of age.
"Meta has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies to entice, engage, and ultimately ensnare youth and teens," states' attorneys wrote in their opening brief. The word "ensnare" is deliberate — it describes a system designed to trap rather than serve.
If the states succeed in forcing product design changes, those changes will affect every Instagram and Facebook user on the platform.
What the Internal Documents Show
The most damaging evidence in the case comes from Meta's own files. In 2021, whistleblower Frances Haugen disclosed a tranche of internal documents — the "Facebook Papers" — that showed the company's researchers had documented the harms their platforms caused and been effectively sidelined.
Among the most cited findings: Meta's own internal research found that Instagram made body image issues worse for one in three teenage girls. Internal presentations acknowledged that the platform's content recommendations pushed susceptible users toward more extreme and distressing content. Researchers who raised concerns described being told the findings were not priorities for the business.
Meta publicly maintained during this period that its platforms were safe, that it took user wellbeing seriously, and that it was doing everything possible to protect vulnerable users. The gap between those public statements and the internal research is what states are calling fraud.
What Already Happened in New Mexico
This federal trial doesn't begin on a blank slate. Earlier this summer, a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for child safety violations and ordered the company to pay $375 million — the largest verdict against a tech company in a state court, and the first time a jury has found Meta liable at trial rather than in a settlement.
The New Mexico verdict covered both Meta and Google, finding both companies contributed to a young woman's mental health deterioration. Evidence presented included internal documents showing that employees had flagged the harms and been overruled.
The federal trial in Oakland carries the combined weight of 29 state governments and a potential damages figure that dwarfs anything a single state could pursue. Legal experts say it represents the most consequential reckoning social media has faced since these companies first became dominant platforms.
What Winning Could Mean for Everyone
States are seeking two things: financial damages and changes to how the platforms actually work. The structural remedies being requested include changes to algorithmic recommendation systems, restrictions on certain engagement-maximizing features, and greater transparency about how content is surfaced to users.
If courts impose those changes, the Instagram and Facebook that exist after this trial would operate differently from the ones that exist today. Time limits, redesigned feeds, reduced algorithmic amplification of emotionally activating content — all have been floated as possible remedies.
For the 2 billion people who use Meta's platforms, that outcome would mean something different in their daily experience. The trial that opens this morning is determining whether the companies that built the way most people experience the internet were in fact building something designed to be bad for them — and what to do about it.
The proceedings are expected to last six to eight weeks.
