Could Meta’s USD 200 bn child safety case reshape Facebook and Instagram?

📱 Meta is embroiled in a federal court case over child safety violations and allegations that it turned a blind eye to what it knew about the harmful design of its social media platforms’ algorithms. Drawing comparisons to Big Tobacco’s 1990s USD 206 bn settlement over consumer addiction, the trial is Meta’s latest in a long line of lawsuits and potentially the largest consumer protection case in US history — with the tech giant facing the possibility of an even bigger payout, as high as USD 1.4 tn. The case could ultimately force fundamental changes to the two platforms at its center: Facebook and Instagram.

Who’s taking on Meta? And for what exactly?

Twenty-nine state attorneys general (AGs) brought the case, with four states — California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey — serving as the lead plaintiffs at trial. The federal civil trial is taking place at the US District Court in Oakland, California. Originally filed in 2023, the lawsuit includes a 200-plus-page claim alleging that Meta deliberately designed its platforms to exploit children’s psychological and emotional vulnerabilities in pursuit of greater advertising revenue on Instagram and Facebook.

The claims in detail: Meta is primarily accused of using “addictive” product designs, including “engagement-optimized algorithms” that drive features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, visual image filters, ephemeral posts, like counts, and unpredictable dopamine hits. The second claim against Meta alleges that the company concealed internal research showing that Instagram use is associated with depression, anxiety, body-image issues, and self-harm among teens.

The AGs’ third and fourth claims allege that the tech giant violated the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting the personal data of children aged 13 and under without parental consent, as well as other federal and state laws and consumer protection statutes.

The states also claim that Meta researched adolescent brain development and built its business model around young people’s lower impulse control and heightened reward sensitivity, keeping them on its apps for as long as possible and pulling them back in. It’s a classic revenue-maximizing strategy that looks particularly grim in light of Meta’s own claims that its platforms are safe and continually improving to protect and support young people.

The case’s key whistleblower and witness, former Meta safety engineer Arturo Bejar, claims that CEO Mark Zuckerberg failed to prioritize youth safety and allowed unrestricted testing of growth-driving features and products that were “near impossible” to screen for potential harms. He accused Zuckerberg of not telling the truth when he denied the revenue-over-safety allegations. It is not yet clear whether the CEO will come in as a witness.

Meta’s defense — and potentially damaging solutions

So far, Meta has remained steadfast in denying the claims. It says it has complied with COPPA in all plaintiff states and denies that its statements about its platforms’ design were misleading. Meta also argues that it is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which generally exonerates online platforms from content posted by third-party users.

A go-to legislative shield for social media platforms, Section 230 has not protected Meta from the negligence claims in this case, according to the presiding judges. Why? Because this time, the claims center on Meta’s own platform design and alleged misrepresentations of safety.

During the trial’s opening arguments last week, the company’s lead attorney Paul Schmidt outlined the safety features that have been rolled out across Meta’s apps over the years. He also pointed to users’ own responsibility, arguing that some teenagers will inevitably find their way onto the platforms and struggle to “manage their time” on them. Schmidt similarly deflected responsibility for the negative content that inevitably makes its way onto social media platforms, and said the app stores where users download these platforms also have a duty of oversight.

In addition to a payout that lawyers say could realistically reach nearly USD 200 bn, Meta could face a far more fundamental consequence: a product redesign. For a company that makes 98% of its revenue from online advertising, a platform design overhaul that reduces overall user engagement would be quite the hit — a bns-of-USD-at-stake kind of hit. Changes would include stricter age-based restrictions and re-enforcing safety features for younger users like time limits.

No more likes? The social media-defining vanity metric being permanently eliminated could be one of the more serious possibilities once the lawsuit is finalized. Research has shown that the ubiquitous social media engagement metric causes feelings of distress among adolescents. Even Meta’s own internal research has acknowledged that like counts can drive social comparison and tie engagement metrics to users’ sense of self-worth. The infinite scroll feature is also at risk, as the AGs push for court-ordered core redesigns and greater transparency around algorithms and feed-tuning.

Meta’s track record in court

This isn’t Meta’s first courtroom battle — and if it loses this one, it certainly won’t be its first loss. Earlier this month, the company faced New Mexico, where a judge ordered Meta to pay USD 567 mn in abatement funds, on top of USD 375 mn in civil penalties, for violating the state’s unfair practices act over child safety concerns. The judge’s orders similarly centered the elimination of like counts and notifications for underage users. The company was dubbed a “public nuisance” — reportedly the first time a social media company received the designation. Meta said it plans to appeal against the ruling.

In March, Meta lost a landmark social media addiction case in Los Angeles brought by a 20-year-old young woman known as Kaley — or KGM — who was awarded USD 6 mn in damages. Kaley sued Meta and Google’s Youtube over their platform designs, which she alleged contributed to her childhood social media addiction and subsequent struggles with depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, and thoughts of self-harm. Her case similarly argued against the infinite scroll feature and alleged the company adopted the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by poker machines to fuel user addiction and drive revenue growth. Again, Meta and Google disagreed with the ruling and plan to appeal.

Facebook, Instagram, Snap, and TikTok collectively face more than 3k cases brought by children, adolescents, and young adults. Beyond the 29 states involved in the California case, another 14 states are pursuing claims against Meta in Nashville. This and a growing list of other lawsuits form part of Meta’s growing courtroom battles over child safety and addiction.

How would this restriction hold up in Egypt?

For us in Egypt, child safety on social media has become a growing concern, particularly this year, when President Abdel Fattah El Sisi called for urgent legislative action to restrict minors’ access to social media. The proposed framework calls for mandatory age-verification technology and restrictions on access for users under 16, with parental oversight. Egypt has also cited Australia’s under-16 social media restrictions, introduced in 2025, as a potential benchmark for its own approach.

The debate gained further momentum following reports that popular gaming platform Roblox was blocked in Egypt over child-safety concerns, with the Supreme Council for Media Regulation citing the platform’s potential risks to children.

Given this legislative direction, Egypt appears to be moving toward a more restrictive approach to social media access for minors. Around 50% of Egyptian minors reportedly use Meta’s platforms, putting a substantial share of young users within the scope of any future restrictions.

Meta’s current case, being heard in California and representing nearly two-thirds of the US population, could likely have implications beyond the US if the company is ultimately forced to make fundamental changes to its platforms. If the jury rules in favor of the states, the immediate requirement would apply to Meta’s US user base. But if similar cases emerge elsewhere, the company could face pressure to implement those changes globally rather than maintain different platform designs across markets.