A federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by 29 US state attorneys general accusing Meta Platforms of designing Facebook and Instagram in ways that encourage compulsive use among children while concealing the potential risks from the public.
In a ruling issued late Monday, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, denied Meta’s request to throw out claims alleging deceptive practices, unfair business conduct and violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The decision allows the states’ case to move toward trial.
The judge also ruled that Meta failed to comply with COPPA’s requirements related to notifying parents and obtaining parental consent. She granted summary judgment to the states on that specific issue, meaning the court found there was no genuine dispute over the relevant facts concerning compliance with those legal requirements.
The lawsuit is one of several legal challenges facing Meta over the impact of social media on young users. Judge Gonzalez Rogers is also overseeing related multidistrict litigation involving more than 2,600 individuals, school districts and local governments. Those cases accuse several major technology companies, including Meta, Google, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok, of creating products that contribute to compulsive social media use among children and teenagers.
The coalition of attorneys general argues that internal research and scientific studies have linked excessive use of Facebook and Instagram to mental health problems among young people. According to the lawsuit, prolonged use of the platforms may contribute to depression, anxiety, insomnia, disruptions to education and daily routines, as well as self-harm and suicidal behaviour.
Meta rejected those claims and argued that the states failed to present evidence showing it intentionally misled consumers about the nature of its platforms. The company pointed to statements made by Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg before Congress, maintaining that there was no proof the company falsely represented Facebook or Instagram as non-addictive.
Meta also argued that the concept of “social media addiction” is not recognised as an established psychiatric condition. Based on that position, the company said statements denying that its platforms are addictive could not be considered false or misleading.
The company also disputed allegations that it violated children’s online privacy laws. Meta maintained that Facebook and Instagram are intended for a general audience rather than specifically targeting children under the age of 13, which it argued placed the platforms outside certain COPPA requirements.
In her 38-page decision, Judge Gonzalez Rogers said important factual disputes remain over whether Meta intentionally designed its platforms to encourage compulsive use, whether the company misrepresented those practices, and whether its services were directed in part toward children.
She wrote that the attorneys general had presented a reasonable interpretation of Meta’s public statements and that a jury could determine those statements were misleading if the evidence shows the platforms were designed to encourage excessive use by teenagers.
Court records show the trial is scheduled to begin on August 18.
