Advocates call for stronger child social media protections as Meta trial opens in California federal court

Advocates gathered outside a California federal courthouse Tuesday ahead of opening statements in a major trial involving Meta Platforms, where states are seeking billions of dollars in damages tied to alleged harms to children from social media use. PBS NewsHour reported that the advocates spoke outside the courtroom as the case moved into its trial phase.

The trial is focused on claims that conduct by Meta Platforms, which operates major social media platforms, contributed to harms affecting minors. PBS described it as a “pivotal” matter, with the litigation centering on the alleged impact of social media on children and what remedies should follow if the plaintiffs prove their allegations.

According to PBS, the plaintiffs are seeking “billions of dollars” in damages. The trial is occurring in federal court in California, placing the dispute within the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal judiciary rather than state courts, and potentially setting up an outcome that could influence how similar child-safety claims are pursued.

Outside the courthouse, advocates called for greater protections for kids. While PBS’s report emphasizes that the speakers argued for stronger safeguards and accountability, it does not, in the details provided here, specify which specific legal theories or proposed standards each advocate supported, or whether their demands tracked particular remedies sought in the lawsuit.

The case’s trial timeline matters for states’ enforcement strategies because damages litigation can determine not only whether plaintiffs obtain monetary relief but also how courts interpret the boundaries of responsibility for platforms and related advertising and recommendation systems. For Meta, a trial verdict could shape the scope of future compliance obligations and inform how the company handles child-safety claims tied to platform design and content delivery.

A trial also typically affects the evidentiary record in ways that appeals cannot replicate. Witness testimony, internal documents, and expert analysis introduced at trial can become central to any later appellate review, particularly when the parties dispute causation and the extent to which alleged harms can be traced to specific product features or corporate actions.

As opening statements get underway, the litigation is expected to proceed through the standard sequence of trial proceedings, including presentation of evidence by both sides. Any decision that follows could determine whether the plaintiffs’ requested damages survive scrutiny, and it could also influence how courts address child-protection arguments in the context of social media regulation.