In an Oakland federal courtroom, four American states have brought Meta before a jury to answer a question that may define the social media era: did a corporation knowingly engineer its platforms to exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of children for profit? The trial, backed by a coalition of 29 states and seeking $200 billion in damages, draws inevitable comparisons to the tobacco litigation of the 1990s — a moment when society finally demanded that industry reckon with the harm it had long understood and concealed. What is at stake is not merely corporate liability, but the terms on w
Meta faces landmark trial as US states allege deliberate addiction of children
Children exposed to deliberately addictive social media platforms designed to exploit developmental vulnerabilities and psychological susceptibilities.
Kids are not users. They are the product.
Mark
Why does Meta's internal research matter so much to the prosecutors' case?
Mimi
Because it proves intent. If Meta simply built addictive features by accident, that's negligence. But if they studied how children's brains work and then deliberately weaponized that knowledge, that's something closer to fraud. The research shows they knew what they were doing.
Mark
Meta's lawyer said research shows no clear link between social media and harm to children's well-being. Is that a strong defense?
Mimi
It's a narrow one. Even if that research exists, it doesn't address the core accusation—that Meta deliberately designed addictive features. You can argue about whether addiction causes harm, but you can't argue you didn't try to create addiction if your own studies show you were targeting children's reward-seeking behavior.
Mark
Why is the tobacco comparison so important here?
Mimi
Because it's the only precedent where a corporation was held legally accountable for knowingly selling something harmful. Tobacco companies knew cigarettes were addictive and dangerous, hid that knowledge, and eventually faced massive liability. If courts treat social media the same way, it changes everything about how tech companies operate.
Mark
What does a $200 billion damages figure actually mean for Meta?
Mimi
It's significant but not catastrophic for a company of Meta's size. What matters more is the second part—the demand for fundamental changes to the platforms themselves. That's what would actually reshape how Instagram and Facebook work.
Mark
Why would Mark Zuckerberg testify if he could avoid it?
Mimi
He probably can't avoid it. In a case this large, with this much at stake, the founder and CEO is almost always called. His testimony could either help or devastate Meta's case, depending on what he says about what he knew and when.
Le Pouls
- California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey have opened a landmark federal trial accusing Meta of deliberately weaponizing children's developmental vulnerabilities — their hunger for reward, their craving for social approval, their weaker impulse control — to make Instagram and Facebook addictive.
- An internal Meta study titled 'The young ones are the best ones' has emerged as a damning centerpiece, suggesting the company viewed children not as users to protect but as a resource to exploit.
- Meta's defense counters that no clear scientific consensus links adolescent social media use to measurable harm, and that the company has actively built tools to support struggling users — framing the lawsuit as prosecutorial second-guessing rather than evidence of wrongdoing.
- Former Meta engineering director Arturo Bejar testified against the company's wishes, describing a culture where speed to market eclipsed safety — and Mark Zuckerberg himself is expected to take the stand before the trial ends.
- The trial is projected to run six to eight weeks, with a verdict anticipated by October, and experts warn its outcome could redraw the legal boundaries governing how technology companies may interact with minors for a generation.
In an Oakland federal courtroom, four American states have brought Meta before a jury to answer a question that may define the social media era: did a corporation knowingly engineer its platforms to exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of children for profit? The trial, backed by a coalition of 29 states and seeking $200 billion in damages, draws inevitable comparisons to the tobacco litigation of the 1990s — a moment when society finally demanded that industry reckon with the harm it had long understood and concealed. What is at stake is not merely corporate liability, but the terms on which technology will be permitted to shape the minds of the young.
A federal courtroom in Oakland became the stage on Tuesday for what many are calling the defining legal confrontation of the social media age. Four states — California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey — brought Meta to trial on a stark charge: that the company deliberately studied how children's brains work and then engineered Instagram and Facebook to exploit those vulnerabilities, turning developmental immaturity into a mechanism for addiction.
The states' case centers on Meta's own research. Prosecutors argue the company investigated how young people seek rewards, crave social validation, and struggle with impulse control — then embedded those findings into the architecture of its platforms. A Meta internal document titled 'The young ones are the best ones' has become a focal point, offered as evidence of a corporate philosophy that treated children as product rather than users to be protected. California's deputy attorney general told the eight-person jury that Meta had not only identified these vulnerabilities but actively discussed how to deepen them. The coalition of 29 states is seeking $200 billion in damages and sweeping platform reforms, and also accuses Meta of routinely collecting data on children under 13 without parental consent.
Meta's defense acknowledged that some users struggle with social media but argued the science does not establish a clear link between platform use and harm to adolescent well-being. The company's attorney characterized the lawsuit as prosecutors substituting their preferences for Meta's genuine and ongoing efforts to improve user safety.
The trial's opening day also brought unexpected testimony from Arturo Bejar, a former Meta engineering director who appeared despite the company's resistance. He described Facebook's founding culture as one that prioritized speed above all else, with safety treated as an afterthought. His account foreshadows what may be the trial's most anticipated moment: Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify before proceedings conclude.
Experts have drawn pointed comparisons to the tobacco litigation of the 1990s, when manufacturers were held accountable for knowingly marketing a harmful product. The final verdict will rest with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, with a decision expected by October — and whatever she rules is likely to shape the law's relationship with technology and child safety for years to come.
A federal courtroom in Oakland opened its doors on Tuesday to what may become the defining legal reckoning of the social media age. Four states—California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey—have brought Meta to trial with a stark accusation: the company deliberately engineered Facebook and Instagram to addict children, knowing exactly which psychological vulnerabilities to exploit.
The states' case rests on a simple but damning premise. Meta, prosecutors argue, conducted extensive research into how children's brains work. They studied how young people constantly hunt for rewards, how they crave social validation, how their ability to resist impulse remains underdeveloped compared to adults. Then, according to the states' lawyers, Meta took that knowledge and built it into the architecture of Instagram and Facebook. A Meta study titled "The young ones are the best ones" captured the company's apparent philosophy: kids are not users. They are the product.
Megan O'Neill, a deputy attorney general for California, laid this out to the eight-person jury on opening day. She described how Meta had researched these vulnerabilities and discussed ways to modify Instagram to exploit them further. The states are seeking $200 billion in damages, along with fundamental changes to how Meta's platforms operate. They also accuse the company of violating privacy law by collecting data on children under 13 without parental consent—a practice the states say was routine.
Meta's defense, delivered by attorney Paul Schmidt, took a different tack. He acknowledged that some social media users struggle. But he pointed to research suggesting no clear link between adolescent social media use and harm to well-being. Meta, he argued, had made genuine efforts to build tools that help users who have negative experiences on the platforms. The company's improvements, he said, had been meaningful. Much of the lawsuit, he suggested, amounts to prosecutors saying they would have done things slightly differently.
The trial's first day also featured testimony from Arturo Bejar, a former Meta engineering director who took the stand despite the company's efforts to prevent his appearance. Bejar described Facebook's early years as driven by a single imperative: get products into users' hands as quickly as possible. Safety and security, he said, were afterthoughts. His presence signals what may come—Mark Zuckerberg himself is expected to testify before the trial concludes.
Experts have begun calling this the social media equivalent of the tobacco trials of the 1990s, when cigarette makers were finally held accountable for knowingly selling a harmful product. The comparison carries weight. Like those cases, this trial hinges on whether a corporation deliberately concealed what it knew about the dangers of its own creation.
The jury will issue an advisory verdict, but the final decision rests with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The trial is expected to run six to eight weeks, with a verdict anticipated by October. What unfolds in that Oakland courtroom over the coming months will likely shape how the law treats technology companies and child safety for years to come.
Citations marquantes
Meta knew a lot about kids' brains, including how they constantly seek rewards, how they are sensitive to social feedback, and how they are still developing their ability to control impulses.— Megan O'Neill, deputy attorney general for California, in opening statement
During Facebook's early years, the goal was to get things into users' hands as fast as possible, which meant safety and security were often an afterthought.— Arturo Bejar, former Meta engineering director, testifying on day one
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur Deutsche Welle ↗
Technology