Meta faces scrutiny in California-led trial over claims its Facebook and Instagram were built to be addictive

A California-led trial targeting Meta Platforms’ Facebook and Instagram opened with state attorneys general arguing that the company’s design choices made its platforms unusually hard to put down, particularly for young users. The case is being pursued by a coalition of 29 state attorneys general, who contend Meta engineered features intended to keep people engaged for longer periods.

The proceeding, which began with opening arguments on the plaintiffs’ side, frames the dispute as more than a debate over technology design. The states argue that Meta’s product decisions translate into consumer harm, and they are seeking remedies that could be costly and far-reaching if the court finds for the government plaintiffs.

Meta, according to coverage of the trial’s early phase, pushed back by warning the potential loss could be “astronomical.” The company’s position, as described in the reporting, is that the theories advanced by the states would create an outsized exposure that does not reflect the reality of how the products work or how liability should be assessed.

At the center of the dispute are Facebook and Instagram, Meta’s two flagship social platforms that the case alleges were configured to maximize attention and repeated use. The states say Meta designed those services to be addictive, pointing to the structure of how content is surfaced, how users are encouraged to return, and the ways in which engagement can be sustained over time.

The trial also highlights how the regulatory and legal focus in the technology sector has increasingly shifted from general claims of “harm” to more specific disputes about product mechanics, user engagement tools, and what companies knew or should have known about impacts on mental health and behavior.

Even with the case now before the court, key details remain limited in what has been publicly described at this stage. It is not clear from the early reporting what exact dollar figures, specific internal metrics, or particular product features the states will rely on most heavily, nor what specific remedial orders the plaintiffs are requesting.

What to watch next is how both sides present evidence during the trial, including testimony and documentation about product goals, engineering and design practices, and the role that engagement features played in shaping user behavior. The court’s approach to causation and scope will likely determine whether this case becomes a narrow finding about certain design choices or a broader ruling with larger implications for how social platforms are evaluated.