One of the most defining legal battles in the history of modern technology begins in the United States, with the Meta giant sitting in the dock.
The company behind Facebook and Instagram is facing a powerful coalition of 29 US states , which are accusing it of deliberately creating addictive platforms , being fully aware of the psychological risks to minors, and systematically misleading public opinion.
The case is not just about the business ethics of a company, but touches the very core of the way social media has been structured and its impact on the mental health of children and adolescents .
At the forefront of the legal battle are four states— California , Colorado , Kentucky , and New Jersey —which have taken on the responsibility of representing the case in court.
The indictment that prosecutors have drafted is based on three main pillars: first, that Meta consciously integrated addictive mechanisms into its applications designed to capture the attention of young people; second, that it intentionally concealed the risks from parents and users; and third, that it proceeded to illegally collect data from children under 13 without the required parental consent , in flagrant violation of federal law. In addition to financial penalties, the states are demanding deep, structural changes to the algorithm and operation of the platforms, in order to set strict limits on protection for the underage audience.
The financial claims that accompany the lawsuit are dizzying, as the amount claimed by the four states reaches $ 193 billion . This number is not a random or single fine, but the sum of the individual violations recorded under consumer protection laws . Prosecutors calculated one violation for each minor user affected by the platform’s practices, even using Meta’s own internal data on the activity of children and adolescents from 2012 to the present.
This amount is approximately equivalent to the company’s annual turnover and is three times its annual profits , while some estimates indicate that the company’s theoretical exposure to claims could rise to as much as $1.4 trillion .
The final judgment belongs to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers , who will weigh both the seriousness of the violations and the overall financial viability of the company.
The atmosphere in the courtroom is particularly charged with the harsh rhetoric of the prosecutors, with the attitude of Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman being characteristic. Coleman directly accused Meta of choosing to ignore the harms it was causing to young people because it served its financial profitability . In fact, he did not hesitate to parallel today’s proceedings with the historical legal conflicts of the past, noting that just as the American judiciary forced the tobacco industry to account in the 1990s and later the pharmaceutical companies for the opioid crisis , in the same way it will impose rules on the social media technology giant.
For its part, Meta categorically rejects the allegations, characterizing the states’ demands as unprecedented in the history of consumer law and organizing its line of defense around three legal and scientific arguments. Initially, the company argues that the concept of “social media addiction” remains an open field of scientific controversy, emphasizing that it is not included as an official disorder in the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association . At the same time, it claims that the multifactorial mental health problems of the new generation cannot be attributed unidimensionally to one application.
On the critical front of data collection for users under 13, Meta’s legal team is following a maneuvering tactic: while it admits the lack of parental consent, it claims that the relevant law cannot be applied to its detriment, as the apps’ terms of use explicitly prohibit the registration of children of that age. According to the company, once these accounts are identified and deleted, there is no legally required “substantial knowledge” of the presence of minors on its platforms.
Meta is also trying to push forward the protective measures it has already put in place, most notably the creation of “teen accounts” in September 2024, which include stricter privacy and parental controls. However, states are pushing back against these moves, calling them belated corrective actions that do not address the chronic systematic exposure of young people to harmful content.
This trial is not being held on neutral ground, as Meta’s previous court defeat in Los Angeles , where the court found it guilty of causing psychological harm to a teenager through prolonged use of its apps, is already weighing heavily. This finality is a strong omen for the outcome of the new proceedings. The stakes in the courtroom go far beyond billions in financial damages; they concern the establishment of a new accountability framework for Big Tech , which will determine whether the digital architecture of the future will continue to sacrifice the well-being of minors on the altar of constant interaction and profit.
