U.S. states accuse the technology giant of designing Instagram and Facebook features that keep young users engaged while failing to adequately protect children. Meta rejects the allegations and says it has invested heavily in safeguards.
OAKLAND, California — Meta says it removed approximately 600,000 accounts belonging to children under 13 during the past three months, as the social-media giant defends itself in a major federal trial examining whether Instagram and Facebook have harmed young users.
The figure emerged during opening arguments in federal court in Oakland, California, where a coalition of 29 state attorneys general is challenging Meta’s practices involving children and teenagers.
At the heart of the case is a question with potentially enormous consequences for the technology industry: Did Meta knowingly design and operate social-media products in ways that placed children at risk while publicly presenting those platforms as safe?
Meta denies that characterization. Its attorneys argue that the company has repeatedly acknowledged concerns surrounding social-media use and has developed safety, age-verification and time-management tools intended to address them.
Meta Says It Is Actively Removing Children Under 13
Meta attorney Paul Schmidt told jurors that the company recognizes some users provide false ages when creating accounts but actively attempts to identify and remove children who are too young to use its services.
Instagram and Facebook generally require users to be at least 13.
According to Schmidt, Meta removed about 600,000 accounts believed to belong to children younger than 13 over the previous three months.
The company presented the figure as evidence that it does not simply tolerate young children circumventing its age requirements.
Age verification, however, remains one of the central disputes in the case.
Meta argues that determining a user’s true age online is technically and ethically complicated. Requiring identification documents or financial information, for example, could create additional privacy concerns and disadvantage young people who do not have access to those documents.
The states contend Meta has not done enough.
States Accuse Meta of Building Products That Keep Children Coming Back
California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill, presenting arguments for the states, offered jurors a sharply different picture of the company.
The states allege that Meta developed features designed to maximize the amount of time people—including teenagers—spend on its platforms.
Their case focuses on technologies and design choices such as recommendation algorithms, infinite scrolling, autoplay, disappearing Stories and other engagement features.
The states argue that these tools can be particularly powerful for children and teenagers because younger users may be more sensitive to social approval and reward-based experiences.
Meta disputes allegations that it deliberately created Instagram and Facebook to addict children.
The distinction will be crucial during the trial. Social-media platforms are designed to encourage engagement, but the states must establish that Meta crossed the line from operating an engaging product into unlawful or unfair conduct.
Internal Meta Documents Take Center Stage
Jurors are expected to see extensive internal company communications throughout the proceedings.
The states say some of those records demonstrate that Meta employees were aware of concerns about the effects Instagram and Facebook could have on younger users.
One internal exchange highlighted during the opening arguments reportedly included an employee comparing Instagram to a drug.
Meta cautioned jurors against interpreting informal workplace conversations without their full context.
Schmidt argued that some internal documents contain casual or imprecise language and said employees responsible for those communications should have an opportunity to explain what they meant and what problems they were attempting to address.
The company is urging jurors to consider the entire record rather than isolated sentences from years of internal communications.
Did Meta Know Children Were Using Instagram?
One particularly significant allegation concerns children younger than 13.
The states cited internal information they say suggested substantial numbers of 11- and 12-year-olds were using Instagram despite the platform’s minimum-age requirement.
O’Neill argued that the presence of those children was not merely an unavoidable accident and accused Meta of failing to respond adequately to information showing underage users were accessing its services.
Meta counters that it has long required users to provide their age and offers mechanisms for people to report suspected underage accounts.
The company’s claim that it recently eliminated 600,000 under-13 accounts is likely to become an important part of that defense.
But the number also raises another question for regulators: If hundreds of thousands of underage accounts can be identified and removed within three months, how many children are successfully bypassing age controls in the first place?
That tension illustrates the technological challenge at the center of the dispute.
Meta Defends Its Teen Safety Record
Meta also argues that the effects of social media on teenagers cannot be reduced to a simple conclusion that Instagram makes young people feel worse.
Schmidt cited survey findings indicating that about 41% of teenagers surveyed said Instagram made them feel better about themselves, while roughly 40% reported no effect and approximately 20% said it made them feel worse.
Meta says its employees have worked specifically on improving the experiences of users in that latter group.
The company also points to tools intended to help users manage how much time they spend on its platforms.
State attorneys dispute the effectiveness of some of those measures.
O’Neill criticized Meta’s daily-limit feature, arguing that young users can easily dismiss it and continue using the platform. The states contend some safety measures have been less effective than Meta’s public presentation suggests.
Mental Health Claims Will Be Closely Examined
The relationship between social media and adolescent mental health is another major element of the dispute.
The states argue that Meta possessed substantial information about children’s psychological vulnerabilities and developed products capable of exploiting reward-seeking and social-feedback behaviors.
They are expected to present expert testimony about possible connections between heavy social-media use and mental-health problems.
Meta is challenging claims that a straightforward causal relationship has been scientifically established.
That is an important distinction. Research can identify associations between social-media use and mental-health outcomes without necessarily proving that social media directly caused those outcomes.
The trial could therefore become as much a debate over scientific evidence as one over technology design.
What the States Want Meta to Change
The plaintiffs are seeking significant changes to some of the most recognizable features of Instagram and Facebook.
Among the measures discussed are stronger parental verification for teenage accounts, changes to recommendation algorithms, restrictions on appearance-altering filters, eliminating autoplay and limiting the ability to maintain multiple accounts.
They have also challenged disappearing content such as Instagram Stories.
Meta argues that some of these features have legitimate purposes.
Multiple accounts, for example, can allow people to maintain separate spaces for family, music, sports or other interests. Meta’s attorneys questioned whether offering users time-management tools can reasonably be considered an unfair business practice.
The Trial Could Reshape Social Media
The case reaches far beyond Meta.
For years, lawmakers, parents, educators and technology companies have struggled with the same fundamental problem: How can children participate in an increasingly digital society without being exposed to products and systems they may not yet be equipped to navigate safely?
Artificial intelligence is making that challenge even more complicated.
Age-estimation technology could potentially help platforms identify children who misrepresent their age, but such systems introduce concerns about accuracy, facial analysis, personal data and privacy.
Stricter identity verification could keep some children away from inappropriate services while simultaneously requiring millions of legitimate users to provide companies with more sensitive information.
There is no technologically perfect solution.
Parents and Campaigners Gather Outside Court
The legal arguments are unfolding against an emotionally charged backdrop.
Parents and campaigners gathered outside the Oakland courthouse as proceedings began, including families who believe social media contributed to devastating experiences involving their children.
Their presence highlights the human stakes behind a case otherwise filled with algorithms, internal documents, engagement statistics and corporate policies.
Meta maintains that it has taken youth safety seriously and has repeatedly improved protections as knowledge and technology evolved.
The states argue those measures were insufficient and that the company knew considerably more about potential risks than it disclosed publicly.
A Major Test for Big Tech
The jury will ultimately have to distinguish between several complicated issues.
It must consider whether Meta merely operated highly engaging social networks used by millions of teenagers—or whether particular design decisions and corporate practices violated consumer-protection and children’s privacy laws.
The outcome could influence how social-media companies approach age verification, recommendation systems, parental controls, product design and children’s data across the technology industry.
Meta’s disclosure that it removed 600,000 suspected under-13 accounts illustrates both sides of the debate.
For the company, the removals demonstrate enforcement.
For critics, they demonstrate the extraordinary scale of the challenge.
And as the trial moves deeper into Meta’s internal research and product-development decisions, jurors will be asked to determine whether the company did enough to protect some of the youngest people using the modern internet.
The Haitian Tribune | Science & Technology
