Meta Faces Its Biggest Reckoning Yet

Federal court in Oakland, California, became the latest battleground this week as Meta confronts a new child safety trial, with my colleague and I each spending a day observing the proceedings. The company is facing what could be its most consequential legal challenge yet, following a string of recent setbacks.

Back in the spring, Meta and YouTube lost a landmark social media case in California, where a jury determined the platforms bore responsibility for harming a young user through specific app design features. Then, earlier this month, a New Mexico court ordered Meta to shell out over $940 million, ruling the company constituted a public nuisance and inflicted psychological harm on children in that state.

Now, the tech giant finds itself in a federal civil trial before the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs here are 29 state attorneys general, who allege Meta breached the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, by gathering personal data from children under 13 without securing parental consent. The lead AGs from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey further contend that Meta issued deceptive statements about its platforms that would mislead consumers. The trial zeroes in on two Meta properties: Facebook and Instagram.

Meta’s defense rests on several pillars. The company argues it fully complied with COPPA requirements in those states and rejects any claims that its communications about app functionality were deceptive. It also leans heavily on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which shields platforms from liability for user-generated content.

I sat in the crowded courtroom on Tuesday as opening arguments unfolded, with chief district judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers presiding. Meta’s legal team, a sizable contingent of high-priced attorneys, encountered an ironic hurdle right off the bat: persistent microphone malfunctions. Megan O’Neill, deputy attorney general for the California Department of Justice, delivered the plaintiffs’ opening statement, painting a picture of a company that deliberately engineered its apps to ensnare young users and harvest their information.

O’Neill told the jury they would see “how many features work both individually and together to keep people in the apps. To draw them in and keep them in for longer. Meta has used these features to draw kids onto the apps, and to keep them coming back.”

Meta’s lead counsel, Paul Schmidt, countered by cataloging the dozens of safety features the company has rolled out over the years, pledging continued improvements. He also redirected some accountability toward users, acknowledging that some kids inevitably slip onto the apps and that certain teens “struggle to manage their time.” Schmidt added that negative content will always surface on social platforms, regardless of safeguards.

The testimony then shifted to Arturo Bejar, a former Meta employee who has become a pivotal witness in these cases. Bejar testified that Mark Zuckerberg failed to prioritize youth safety during his tenure. He described a corporate culture where anyone with a growth-oriented feature idea “could just test it” without rigorous oversight. At the same time, he said it was “near impossible” to vet products for potential harms before they went live. (The trial paused Thursday after a juror fell ill.)

Meta’s history over the past decade reads like a catalog of controversies, many of which have either slipped from public consciousness, been dismissed as business costs, or resolved quietly through settlements. Its platforms have been implicated in fueling violence and influencing elections. The company has repeatedly extracted user data through deliberately murky practices. And internal dysfunction at Meta has been laid bare through depositions, tell-all books, and investigative reports. This trial, however, forces those issues into the open under oath, with state governments demanding accountability in real time.