Judge allows states to proceed with their claim that Meta has addicted children to Facebook and Instagram.

      Meta will need to defend itself in court against allegations that it designed Facebook and Instagram to create addiction among children, as a federal judge on Monday declined to dismiss the core of a lawsuit filed by attorneys general from 29 states.

      US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, based in Oakland, California, allowed the states to pursue their claims that Meta misled the public, employed unfair practices, and violated a federal child-privacy law. She identified authentic factual disagreements that should be resolved by a jury instead of through a motion.

      In her 38-page decision, Gonzalez Rogers stated there are material disagreements regarding whether Meta's applications are addictive, whether the company falsely claimed they were not designed with this in mind, and whether they were at least partially aimed at children.

      The states have not yet proven their case, but they have secured the opportunity to attempt to do so.

      The judge also made a significant decision regarding one aspect by granting the states partial summary judgment on their claim under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), determining that Meta did not comply with the law’s requirements for notification and parental consent.

      This decision indicates liability on a specific issue before a jury has even been presented with evidence, limiting the arguments Meta can make when the case proceeds to trial.

      The states allege that Meta developed features designed to maximize the engagement of young users while concealing knowledge of the associated harms. They reference research that connects extensive use of the platforms to issues like depression, anxiety, sleep disturbances, disrupted education, and self-harm, including suicide.

      The COPPA ruling poses a particularly serious challenge for Meta. This federal law regulates how online services manage the data of children under 13, mandating clear notification and verifiable parental consent before data collection occurs.

      By concluding that Meta failed to meet these requirements, the judge eliminated a point the company hoped to contest before a jury.

      Meta has consistently rejected this characterization, highlighting its commitment to teen protection, including the introduction of Instagram Teen Accounts with default restrictions on contact, content, and screen time.

      Now, these defenses will face scrutiny rather than be taken for granted. The introduction of app-level controls has become a common strategy for platforms facing regulatory pressure, raising questions in courts about whether these controls are genuinely effective.

      Independent studies have suggested they often fall short, with a report co-authored by Meta whistleblower Arturo Béjar indicating that roughly two-thirds of the teen safety tools examined were ineffective, with only around 17% functioning as intended.

      Meta disputes this methodology, but the trial will delve into the gap between promise and actual performance. A trial concerning the claims from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey is set to begin on 18 August, according to court documents. This will be the first trial testing the states' allegations against Meta.

      Gonzalez Rogers is also overseeing extensive multidistrict litigation involving over 2,600 individuals, school districts, and local governments questioning whether social platforms are causing addiction in children.

      This broader litigation involves not only Facebook and Instagram but also Google’s YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok, meaning the August trial will provide early insight into how juries view the entire industry.

      Regulators have been scrutinizing social platforms and their effects on children for years, involving app-store regulations and design codes aimed at minors. Legal action is now progressing where regulation has lagged.

      Meta is facing a multitude of legal challenges, having spent recent years addressing antitrust lawsuits and privacy claims across various jurisdictions. The addiction lawsuits are distinct in nature as they challenge the product design itself.

      An earlier jury in a related case determined that Meta's platforms harm children, a consideration the company will bear in mind as August approaches.

      Currently, the ruling alters the dynamics for Meta. The company enters the trial already facing a privacy violation ruling, with its primary defense—that it did not design for addiction—about to be presented to a jury.