A federal judge in California has dealt a significant blow to Meta Platforms by denying the company’s motion to dismiss a sweeping lawsuit brought by attorneys general from 29 U.S. states. The litigation accuses the social media giant of deliberately engineering Facebook and Instagram to be addictive for children while actively concealing the associated harms from the public. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, based in Oakland, issued the ruling late Monday, determining that the states had presented sufficient evidence to move forward with claims related to deception, unfair business practices, and violations of federal children’s privacy laws.
The ruling represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle over the role of social media in youth mental health, as it allows the states to proceed with their core allegations that Meta misled the public about the safety and design of its platforms. Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that there are material factual disputes regarding whether Facebook and Instagram are designed to be addictive, whether Meta falsely denied this design intent, and whether the platforms were in fact directed at children. In her 38-page decision, the judge specifically noted that the attorneys general have presented a reasonable interpretation of statements made by Meta regarding the platforms’ design. The judge wrote that the states’ evidence could lead a jury to reasonably conclude that the platforms are designed to cause teens to use them compulsively to their own detriment, making Meta’s public statements to the contrary potentially untrue to a reasonable person.
Meta, which is headquartered in Menlo Park, California, had vigorously argued that the case should be dismissed on several grounds. The company contended that the attorneys general lacked evidence that Meta misled consumers about the alleged addictiveness of its platforms, including during congressional testimony from Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg. Meta further argued that “social media addiction” is not a recognized psychiatric condition, and therefore statements that its platforms are not addictive could not be considered false. Additionally, the company maintained that it had not violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act because Facebook and Instagram are directed at a general audience rather than specifically targeting children under the age of 13.
The judge rejected these arguments, finding that the states had raised legitimate questions that must be resolved by a jury. She also ruled that Meta had failed to comply with the notice and parental consent requirements of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, granting summary judgment to the states on that specific issue. This aspect of the ruling could have significant implications for how Meta and other social media companies handle data collection and parental consent regarding younger users.
In response to the ruling, Meta issued a statement expressing strong disagreement with the allegations. The company said, “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.” This defense echoes the company’s broader position that it has implemented numerous safety features and parental controls across its platforms to protect younger users.
Meanwhile, California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the decision as a critical step forward in holding Meta accountable. Bonta called the ruling “a critical win” in the effort to address what he described as a mental health crisis among American children fueled by social media use. His sentiment was shared by other state attorneys general who have been at the forefront of this litigation.
The case against Meta is part of a much larger legal landscape surrounding social media and youth mental health. Judge Gonzalez Rogers also oversees related multidistrict litigation that involves more than 2,600 individuals, school districts, and local governments. That broader litigation addresses whether various social media platforms, including Google’s YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok, as well as Meta’s offerings, are designed to be addictive for children. The states involved in this particular case have argued that research demonstrates children’s use of Facebook and Instagram can lead to depression, anxiety, insomnia, interference with education and daily life, and even self-harm including suicide.
Meta has consistently downplayed the harms associated with its platforms, pointing to the lack of a formal psychiatric diagnosis for social media addiction as evidence that its statements cannot be deemed misleading. However, the judge’s ruling suggests that the legal standard for deception may not require a formally recognized medical condition, but rather whether the company made representations that were likely to mislead a reasonable person.
The judge’s decision also highlights the growing scrutiny on how social media companies design their products and the potential consequences for younger users. The concept of persuasive design, which uses psychological principles to encourage repeated and prolonged engagement, has come under increasing criticism from parents, educators, and policymakers. Critics argue that features such as infinite scrolling, push notifications, and algorithmically curated content are specifically engineered to keep users engaged for as long as possible, often at the expense of their mental health and well-being.
The trial over claims brought by California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey against Meta is scheduled to begin on August 18, according to court records. That trial will likely serve as a bellwether for the broader legal challenges facing Meta and other social media companies. The outcome could influence not only the future of this particular litigation but also the regulatory environment surrounding social media and child safety more generally.
The states’ case against Meta relies heavily on internal company documents and communications that they argue demonstrate a pattern of deception regarding the platforms’ effects on young users. These documents are said to show that Meta was aware of the potential harms but chose to prioritize engagement and revenue over user safety. The company has disputed this characterization, maintaining that it has made significant investments in safety features and content moderation to protect younger users.
