Jury selection has begun in Oakland, California, in a federal trial that could become one of the biggest tests yet of whether Meta can be held liable for the way Facebook and Instagram are designed for young users.
The case is part of a 2023 multidistrict lawsuit brought by state attorneys general against Meta Platforms. The first trial includes California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, while other states remain in the broader litigation. The trial is expected to last six to eight weeks, according to Associated Press reporting.
The short version for parents and platform users: this is not a broad referendum on whether teenagers should use social media. It is a narrower legal test of whether Meta misled the public about youth safety, used product features that states say keep children and teens engaged despite known risks, and collected data from children under 13 without proper parental consent.
What changed
Jury selection began on August 12, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The trial follows a series of pretrial rulings that kept key claims alive, including allegations tied to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said this week that the court again rejected Meta’s attempt to avoid trial. The state’s case alleges that Meta designed and deployed features on Facebook and Instagram to maximize young users’ time on the platforms while downplaying risks to mental and physical health.
Meta denies wrongdoing. The company has pointed to teen-safety tools and product updates, including expanded Teen Account protections, age-appropriate content settings and AI-powered age detection. In a June update, Meta said its newer protections are meant to make age-appropriate experiences the default for teens across Instagram, Facebook and Messenger.
What the trial will test
The case turns on two linked questions. First, the states will try to show that Meta’s design choices were not neutral platform features but conduct that allegedly encouraged compulsive use by minors. Second, they will argue that Meta collected or used personal information from under-13 users in ways that violated federal privacy rules.
Meta is expected to argue that it has invested heavily in safety, that families have tools to manage teen accounts, and that the states are trying to punish lawful design and speech-related choices. Those arguments matter because platform-liability cases often run into legal protections for user speech and difficult questions about where product design ends and editorial judgment begins.
Why it matters
A verdict or court order against Meta could influence how social platforms design feeds, notifications, defaults, age checks and parental controls. It could also shape negotiations in the many related cases brought by families, school districts and state officials.
The Oakland trial begins less than a week after a New Mexico court ordered Meta to pay $567 million for treatment, prevention and other child-safety measures after a separate state case. Meta has said it will appeal that ruling.
For readers, the practical point is to separate courtroom claims from household decisions. The trial will not produce an immediate national rule for every teen account. But it may reveal more about what Meta knew, what it changed, and which safeguards courts consider meaningful.
What happens next
Opening statements are expected after jury selection. The trial schedule means major testimony and internal-document arguments could stretch into September.
Until then, parents and guardians do not need to wait for a verdict to review account settings. The immediate checklist is simple: confirm a teen’s listed age, check who can message them, review content settings, turn on available parental supervision tools when appropriate, and talk through what notifications or recommendation feeds keep pulling them back in.
