A federal judge in the United States has denied Meta Platforms Inc.’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit brought by multiple state attorneys general alleging the company intentionally designed Facebook and Instagram to addict children while concealing the associated harms. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the ruling late Monday in Oakland, California, allowing claims related to deception, unfair practices, and violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) to proceed.
The plaintiffs argue that Meta failed to meet legal requirements for notice and parental consent under COPPA when collecting data from children. State attorneys general contend that research links young users’ engagement with Facebook and Instagram to mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, insomnia, educational disruption, and self-harm. These allegations form part of a broad, multi-district litigation consolidating hundreds of lawsuits against Meta and other social media platforms over their impact on minors.
Meta has disputed these claims. In a statement, the company said it strongly disagrees with the allegations and expressed confidence that evidence will demonstrate its commitment to supporting young people. The company also argued that “social media addiction” is not a recognized psychiatric diagnosis and disputed that it misled consumers about the addictiveness of its platforms.
The upcoming trial is scheduled to begin on August 18. The litigation represents one of several legal challenges facing Meta as various states seek greater accountability from social media companies over their treatment of child users.
Separately, regulatory measures concerning children’s access to social media have been evolving internationally. In Australia, for example, the minimum age for using popular social media applications was raised to 16 last December. This change followed advocacy efforts, including campaigns aimed at limiting children’s exposure to social media platforms, reflecting broader concerns about the effects of these services on youth.
The case highlights ongoing debates about the responsibilities of technology companies in protecting younger users and the adequacy of existing regulations in addressing emerging digital harms. Meta’s motion denial signals that courts are willing to scrutinize such practices under consumer protection and privacy laws.