Mark Zuckerberg to Testify as Meta Faces 29 States Over Kids Safety Trial

Meta is heading into an Oakland trial that puts Facebook and Instagram's design choices on the stand. This isn't a fight over whether teenagers like social media. It's a fight over whether a platform can be held liable for building products that keep children there too long.

Mark Zuckerberg is on the states' witness list. So is Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram. If you run any company built on attention, this case is worth watching closely, because the plaintiffs are not only attacking what users saw on Meta's apps. They are attacking the machinery that made them keep scrolling.

The Associated Press reported that jury selection began Wednesday in federal court in Oakland, with opening statements and evidence scheduled to start August 18 before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The trial is expected to last six to eight weeks. Meta faces a federal multidistrict lawsuit filed by 29 states in 2023, though this first trial covers claims from California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey.

The charge is plain enough. The states say Meta collected data from children under 13 without parental consent, violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and used Facebook and Instagram features that pulled young users back onto the apps for longer sessions. Meta has denied the allegations and told AP it has introduced dozens of youth safety features.

Good. Let the evidence test that.

The fight is over design

Meta tried to slow the case before trial. Axios reported that a Ninth Circuit panel rejected the company's attempt to postpone the Oakland proceeding after Meta argued, in part, that Section 230 should protect it from these claims. The panel did not give the company the shield it wanted. That is the pressure point for every large platform: Section 230 protects companies from liability for much of what users post, but the states are aiming at product decisions, not a teenager's post or a stranger's comment.

The lawsuit is not new. State attorneys general opened a joint investigation in 2021 after Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's disclosures put Instagram's internal teen safety research in front of Congress and the public. The states filed their federal case in 2023. It has taken nearly three years to get to a courtroom where Meta's own documents, executives and design choices can be tested in public.

The advisory jury setup also changes the feel of the trial. Jurors will answer specific questions, but Judge Gonzalez Rogers will decide the case herself. That means Zuckerberg's testimony is not only theater for a jury box. It is part of a record the judge can parse carefully and appeals courts may revisit later.

This is where the case gets serious. The allegation is not that Meta made an app children enjoyed. The allegation is that Meta knew features such as autoplay, infinite scroll, recommendations and push notifications could drive compulsive use among minors, then kept building around engagement while telling parents and regulators a safer story.

Meta has already felt a jury turn

Meta has reason to treat this trial as more than another legal nuisance. In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google's YouTube negligent in a separate social media harm case brought by a young woman identified as Kaley. ABC News reported that jurors awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and another $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta owing $4.2 million and YouTube $1.8 million.

That case involved one plaintiff. The Oakland case is different: it comes with state enforcement power and statutory penalties behind a much broader theory of liability. AP also reported that a New Mexico court recently ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a teen mental health fund, on top of $375 million in civil penalties jurors ordered in March in that state's case. Those are no longer symbolic losses.

A loss in Oakland would not just hurt because of money, though the penalties could be enormous if violations are counted across millions of underage accounts. The bigger risk is precedent. If a federal judge accepts that specific engagement features can amount to unlawful conduct when used on children, every platform built around time spent and repeat visits has a new problem to price in.

Meta's likely answer is familiar: its tools have legitimate uses, parents have a role, and social media can help young people connect. Some of that is true. It still does not answer the harder question at the center of the trial. A company can know children are using its product. It can know what keeps them there. It can keep tuning the product anyway. Responsibility cannot stop at the login screen.

The next seven weeks will not settle the whole debate over children and social media. But they may settle something narrower and more useful: whether the law is finally ready to judge the design of the feed itself.

Also read: Apple Is Testing Chinese Memory Chips From CXMT for iPhones and MacBooks • California Approves Waymo's Biggest Robotaxi Expansion Across 18 Counties • Twitch Admits It Made AI Training Opt-Out Because No One Would Opt In

Source