A landmark federal lawsuit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is set to begin jury selection on August 18 in Oakland, California. The case, brought by a coalition of state attorneys general representing approximately 60 million residents from California, Kentucky, Colorado, and New Jersey, seeks more than $1 trillion in damages over allegations that Meta deliberately designed its platforms to be addictive, causing widespread consumer harm, particularly among children and teenagers.

This high-stakes litigation follows a precedent-setting verdict earlier this year in Los Angeles, where a jury held Meta and YouTube liable for the mental health struggles of a 20-year-old woman, awarding her $6 million in punitive damages. That verdict challenged longstanding legal protections social media companies have enjoyed, which have typically shielded them from accountability for the effects their products may have on users’ mental health.

The current federal lawsuit accuses Meta of prioritizing growth by targeting young users, including “tweens” between the ages of 10 and 12, despite legal restrictions that prohibit children under 13 from opening social media accounts. Internal documents released through pre-trial discovery reveal that Meta viewed youth users as highly valuable, with a lifetime revenue potential for a 13-year-old estimated at $350 compared to $200 for older users. Meta employees reportedly encouraged acquiring young users as early as possible, a dynamic prosecutors argue contributed to the company’s failure to restrict children’s access and heightened vulnerability.

Meta has denied these claims, emphasizing its implementation of numerous safety features designed to protect young users. The company notes steps such as restricting messaging functions for teenagers to private by default and facilitating easier reporting mechanisms for harmful content. Meta described the $1 trillion damages demand as “outlandish” and insisted it will vigorously defend against what it called “headline-seeking demands untethered from reality."

The case is being overseen by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who acknowledged that the requested damages amount was excessive but also rejected Meta’s proposed cap of $4 million as insufficient. This federal trial forms part of a broader legal campaign against social media firms in the United States, with more than 2,600 related lawsuits consolidated into two primary courts—Los Angeles Superior Court and the federal court in Oakland. Both courts are advancing a select number of “bellwether” cases intended to establish legal precedents on social media addiction and corporate responsibility.

Advocates for the plaintiffs, including attorney Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center, have stressed that the goal is accountability rather than financial compensation. Bergman represents families who have lost children to suicide and argues that only substantial financial consequences will compel social media companies to change their practices.

The wave of litigation coincides with heightened regulatory scrutiny globally. Several countries, including Australia, Indonesia, Brazil, and Malaysia, have introduced national restrictions on children’s access to social media, with others in Europe considering similar measures. Recently, a New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a fund addressing app-related harms and mandated changes such as limiting notifications during school hours and deleting data for underage users. The court compared Meta’s platforms to a polluting factory, citing their real-world impact on children’s well-being.

Meta and YouTube continue to appeal adverse rulings from Los Angeles and New Mexico, while preparing for ongoing trials that will test claims of addiction, deception, and corporate neglect within the social media industry. As these cases proceed, the sector faces increasing pressure to respond to mounting evidence that its platforms may be linked to serious mental health consequences among vulnerable users.