The Meta social media trial brought by four US states opens this week in the Northern District of California, with jury selection under way in People of the State of California, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. (case number 4:23-cv-05448-YGR), presided over by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The proceedings begin against a backdrop of courtroom losses for Meta that have already reached into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Opening arguments are scheduled to begin next week. The trial is expected to last seven weeks, with Judge Gonzalez Rogers set to issue her ruling after proceedings conclude in October. She has taken the procedural step of empanelling an advisory jury to answer specific questions, though the final decision rests with her alone.
What the Meta Social Media Trial Seeks to Establish
California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are prosecuting the case jointly, though they form part of a larger group: 29 states in total are party to the multidistrict litigation, only four of which are proceeding to trial together this week.
The states allege that Meta violated consumer protection laws by designing its platforms to induce extended, addictive, and compulsive use among young people, and by misleading the public about the harms those platforms cause. Their targets include algorithmic content curation, post ‘like’ counts, notification systems, and photo filters, which the states argue fuel body dysmorphia and compulsive engagement, independent of the content users post.
Meta’s central defence rests on Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which broadly insulates interactive computer services from civil liability arising from third-party speech. The states counter that their claims go to product design, not user-generated content. Whether courts ultimately accept that distinction may define the liability exposure of the entire social media sector.
‘Big damage awards and judicial dictates about features both potentially pose existential threats to social media defendants,’ law professor Eric Goldman told Reuters.
A Mounting Legal Toll Across Several Jurisdictions
The current trial is the latest front in a legal campaign that has already produced substantial verdicts. In New Mexico state court, a Santa Fe jury found Meta liable under the state’s Unfair Practices Act on 24 March and awarded $375 million in civil penalties after deliberating for less than a day. A subsequent bench trial on a public-nuisance claim then produced a separate order requiring Meta to establish a $567 million abatement fund, according to Tech Policy Press.
The combined New Mexico liability stands at $942 million. As PBS NewsHour reported, that sum represents a small fraction of Meta’s approximately $60 billion annual profit in 2025. Meta’s stock fell less than half a percent to $589.44 in after-hours trading following the New Mexico ruling.
New Mexico Chief Judge Bryan Biedscheid wrote in his decision that ‘New Mexico is in the midst of a teen mental health crisis affecting public health and public safety in and throughout the state, and that Meta’s platforms are a significant contributing cause to the crisis.’ He also found Meta had created a public nuisance by facilitating child sexual exploitation.
At the federal level, the first of three bellwether cases drawn from the multidistrict litigation was decided in March. The jury awarded Kaley Glenn-Mills, now twenty years old, $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages, for a total of $6 million. Meta was held 70 per cent responsible and Google 30 per cent responsible, leaving Meta liable for $4.2 million and Google for $1.8 million. Google has stated it intends to appeal, according to Nigh Goldenberg, the law firm representing the plaintiff.
Glenn-Mills began using YouTube at age 6, Instagram at age 9, Musical.ly (later TikTok) at age 10, and Snapchat at age 11. Snap and TikTok settled with her just before trial; only Meta and Google proceeded to the jury. A separate bellwether case involving a school district also settled before reaching trial, with Snap, YouTube, Meta, and TikTok collectively paying an estimated $27 million.
Pre-Trial Skirmishing and What Comes Next
Procedural manoeuvreing continues alongside jury selection. According to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California docket, Meta filed a motion for sanctions on 7 August 2026, seeking to preclude the states from calling third-party witness Arturo Bejar at trial. A hearing on that motion is scheduled for 13 August 2026.
The Section 230 argument that has shielded platforms for nearly three decades is being tested in every one of these proceedings. If Judge Gonzalez Rogers finds against Meta after a seven-week trial, the question of whether platform design constitutes actionable conduct, separate from the speech it hosts, may reach the appellate courts, with implications well beyond any single damages award.
