Meta returns to court as attorneys general press a youth-safety and addiction case

Meta is back in court as a coalition of U.S. attorneys general and other plaintiffs pursue a lawsuit focused on whether the company’s social media products can drive harmful “addiction” behaviors in young users, according to reporting on the start of trial proceedings.

The case reached the courtroom stage as opening statements began Tuesday, with Meta’s lawyers and the plaintiffs presenting their positions on what the plaintiffs say are risks to youth and what Meta disputes as a legal and factual basis for sweeping changes to its platforms.

The dispute is being framed as Meta’s largest trial yet tied to social media addiction concerns, and it is described as potentially the company’s most consequential legal battle over youth safety.

The risk to Meta, as portrayed in the coverage of the opening phase, is not limited to a narrow judgment for damages. The reporting says that if Meta loses, the outcome could fundamentally change how the company designs or operates its social media products.

Meta’s platforms include Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, which rely on engagement-focused features such as recommendations and feeds. In broad terms, the plaintiffs’ theory of harm centers on the argument that product design can affect user behavior, particularly for minors, and that companies may bear responsibility if that behavior is foreseeably harmful.

The litigation arrives at a time when regulators and lawmakers have increasingly pushed for stronger safeguards for young users, including limits on data use, clearer disclosures, and more aggressive controls over content and engagement systems. While Meta has repeatedly maintained that its products are designed with safety in mind, the courtroom test puts the underlying allegations and legal standards in front of a judge and jury rather than in policy discussions.

At this stage, key practical details about what remedies the plaintiffs are seeking, what specific features are alleged to be most harmful, and what evidence Meta plans to emphasize were not provided in the reporting that flagged the start of opening statements.

That limits what can be concluded from the first day alone. Investors and observers will likely look for how the parties define “addiction,” how they connect product behavior to measurable harm in minors, and whether the case centers on internal testing, third-party research, or communications between product teams and safety staff.

Beyond the trial’s initial opening arguments, the next milestones to watch include the scope of testimony, the types of technical evidence presented about how engagement systems work, and any interim rulings that could shape what the court allows as the case progresses.