OAKLAND — The eight jurors seated in Oakland’s federal courthouse this week are not being asked to decide whether teenagers have been harmed by Instagram and Facebook. That question was largely settled before the trial began, through prior verdicts and the internal Meta research now in the public record. The question before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers — and through her, before 29 state attorneys general who have spent years building this case — is whether a court can force a company to redesign the machine that caused the harm.
The Meta social media addiction trial entered its second week Friday with no verdict in sight and an unusual legal architecture that puts the weight of decision on the judge rather than the jury. The eight-person jury is serving in an advisory capacity only; Gonzalez Rogers will determine liability herself. What she decides — and more critically, what remedies she orders — could reshape how hundreds of millions of people, including an estimated 35 million American teenagers, experience the most-used social platforms in the world.
The states are asking for far more than money. California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, leading a coalition of 29 attorneys general, want infinite scroll removed for young users, algorithmic recommendations built from data collected from minors stripped from Meta’s platforms, and time restrictions placed on how long under-18 users can stay on Instagram and Facebook in a single session. The financial demand — roughly $200 billion, against a theoretical maximum of $1.4 trillion that Meta’s own lawyers calculated — is secondary to the structural argument. The states want the architecture changed.
Meta’s defense in court has followed a consistent line: the company “stands by its record of creating strong protections for teens” and the states have presented no proof of misleading statements. Stephanie Otway, a Meta spokesperson, said the company looks forward to making its case. What Meta has not contested is that its internal research — developed partly by Arturo Béjar, the engineering director who testified last week — showed links between Instagram use and depression, anxiety, and self-harm among teenage girls. What it contests is what that research required the company to do.
Béjar, who left Meta in 2022 and surfaced the internal findings in congressional testimony before this trial began, told the court Thursday that CEO Mark Zuckerberg had built a company culture in which engagement metrics took precedence over safety outcomes. Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri are expected to testify before the proceedings conclude in approximately five weeks.
The trial is not the first time Meta has faced financial consequences for how it handled children on its platforms. In March, a New Mexico jury returned a $375 million verdict against the company in a separate state case. A federal judge ordered a $567 million penalty in a related proceeding shortly afterward. The two verdicts together have established something that Meta’s public statements had long denied: that courts are willing to hold the company accountable at scale, not just through regulatory consent orders.
The $200 billion the 29-state coalition is pursuing dwarfs both prior penalties. It is approximately equal to Meta’s total 2025 revenue — a figure that analysts across the financial industry have described as realistically uncollectable in full, but which would, if awarded even partially, represent an existential restructuring of the company’s balance sheet. Meta has not commented on what a partial verdict would mean for its $130 billion AI infrastructure spending commitment, which Zuckerberg announced earlier this year.
What is different in Oakland is that Judge Gonzalez Rogers has the authority to order operational changes directly. She cannot be satisfied by a fine that goes to the Treasury and a corporate statement about improved teen safety tools. The states have asked her to appoint an independent technical monitor with access to Meta’s platform code. If she grants that request, it would be the first time a US court has placed a platform’s algorithm under an independent officer with genuine inspection rights.
Whether any of this survives appeal is a separate question. Meta has the resources and the legal team to pursue an appeal through the Ninth Circuit and potentially to the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit’s social media addiction lawsuits Section 230 ruling created the legal framework for this trial; that ruling itself could face a challenge. The structural changes the states are demanding — the deletion of algorithms trained on minors’ data, the disabling of infinite scroll for users under 18 — could be stayed pending appeal for years.
What the trial cannot undo is the accumulation of record. Béjar’s Arturo Béjar testimony last week, the internal research now entered as evidence, the three prior financial penalties — together they have created a documented history that Meta’s public relations operation can no longer contest with a statement about teen safety tools. NBC News reported the trial as one that could reshape Facebook and Instagram as platforms. Al Jazeera noted the escalating financial exposure represented by the New Mexico verdict and subsequent judge order. Whether that record produces change in how the platforms work, or only in what legal exposure the company carries, is the question Oakland is, for now, the right place to ask.
