The Current - The Meta lawsuit that could change social media forever

Episode Date: August 19, 2026

A landmark trial is underway in California against the tech giant Meta. The case was brought by 29 states who allege that Meta - which owns Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp - intentionally designed its platforms to get young people addicted. CNN tech reporter Clare Duffy explains why the trial is being called the biggest test yet of social media’s effect on kids – and why some analysts say the outcome could reshape social media.

It wasn't too long ago that much of Canada's political class was united in their embrace of immigration to help grow the population and with it the economy. Now, many of those same people are singing a different tune, arguing that Canada's immigration consensus is broken. I'm Jamie Poisson, host of the Daily News podcast Frontburner, where we recently took a closer look at the political 180 on immigration. Check it out on the front burner feed wherever you get your podcast. This is a CBC podcast. I'm Lindsay Duncombe, and this is the current podcast. A landmark trial is underway in California against the tech giant meta.

The case was brought by 29 states who allege that meta, which owns Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, intentionally designed its platforms to get young people addicted. The trial is being called the biggest test yet of social media's effect on kids. And analysts say the outcome could reshape how we use social media. Claire Duffy is a tech reporter for CNN and host of the CNN podcast Terms of Service with Claire Duffy. She's in New York. Good morning, Claire. Good morning, Lindsay.

Thanks for having me. What are the states involved in this lawsuit alleging here? Well, the states are alleging, as you said, that META intentionally designed its platforms to be addictive to kids. And what we heard from their opening statement yesterday is that META's business, they say, relies on hooking young people and keeping them on the platform as long as possible, exploiting their data and their attention. And that all of this has contributed to a mental health crisis among the teens in their states. They also say that META has misled the public about risks it knows exist to young people on its platforms. They say META publicly says its platforms are safe for kids despite internal research showing otherwise. And then there's a third allegation here, which is that meta illegally gathers data on children under the age of 13.

So that is sort of the bulk of the state's case here. What kind of damages are they seeking? So that is what really sets this case apart from the thousands of other cases that we've seen brought against Meta and the other big tech companies over this youth addiction issue. The stakes for meta in this case are so much higher. The states could be seeking damages, financial damages, as much as $1.4 trillion. with a T, that is nearly as much as what META is worth on Wall Street. But even if they don't get that number, don't end up seeking a number that big, the states are also seeking changes to how META operates its platforms.

And that is where we could see really significant changes if META loses this case to the experience that really everyone has, but especially young people have on these platforms, if the states seek changes to the amount of time that young people can spend on these platforms or how META can target them with ads. That could both change the experience for users and also have a real material impact on META's business. So what are the specific features on Instagram and Facebook that the state prosecutors say that's the thing that is keeping kids hooked? Yeah, there's a range of features, but they talk about things like the endlessly scrolling feeds that keep kids on these apps for so long, the recommendation algorithms that use

their personal data to know exactly what they'd be interested in, things like likes that encourage social comparison among teens, the frequent notifications that, you know, keep kids up late at night. Those are the kinds of things that the states allege meta has intentionally engineered to keep kids using their apps as long as possible. What's meta's response here? So meta has called the claims unsubstantiated. They have called this idea of a $1.4 trillion dollar damages and outlandish payout. And during their opening statement yesterday, they allege that the states are misrepresenting its business and its policies. They accuse the attorneys general of cherry picking internal documents and statements that they say paints a misleading picture of the

company. Their lawyer argued that, look, meta studies harms on the platform so that it can fix them. And he talked about safety measures like parental controls, teen content restrictions. He also said regarding that allegation about children under the age of 13, that look, it's really hard for all platforms to do age verification because there's a tradeoff between figuring out how old your users are and privacy. So META pushing back hard on these allegations. How strong of a case do you think the states have here? Is there any way to determine how powerful it could be?

Well, look, META has already lost two of these cases with similar addiction claims. Those were different juries. You know, one of them was in a completely different state. And so we can't necessarily assume that what happened in those cases is going to happen again here. But I think there are a couple of real challenges for meta. One of them is just that we've seen the release, the attorneys general have gotten their hands on so many internal documents where you do see meta employees and even meta executives talking about their

research that shows children having a challenging time on their platforms. I think the other challenge for meta here is that these states and, many of these thousands of lawsuits are testing out a sort of new legal theory. Meta and the other big tech platforms have for a long time relied on this law called Section 230 that shields them from being held accountable for what users post on their site. And in these cases, the judges have essentially said section 230 doesn't apply here because what the plaintiffs are going after is the design choices that Meta has made rather than the content on the platform. Now, Meta is still trying to use Section 230 as a sort of defense here.

But I think that's a real challenge is this legal shield that they've relied on for so long isn't necessarily going to protect them in these cases. Will some of the evidence that we saw in those previous cases be used in this case too? Yes, I think we'll see evidence that we saw in earlier cases. I also think that we may see new evidence that these state attorneys general have gotten their hands on. And throughout this trial, we are also expecting to get testimony from meta executives like CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Messeri, Antigone Davis, who is the global head of safety at the company. And they're going to be asked these tough questions about the sort of contradictions between what the company has been discussing internally about risks

and what they have said publicly about their platforms being safe for young people, trying to reassure parents that it's okay to let your kids use these apps. How high are the stakes here? You talked about the big amounts of money and potential changes, but how significant is what happens in this California course? room. I mean, it's huge because this, again, could set yet another precedent that other states could look at. You know, this case is part of a consolidated lawsuit that was brought by 29 state attorneys general, but this trial is being argued by four of those states. So you've still got 25 other states that are

going to be looking for their own remedies in their own trials. And so if meta loses this case, it could sort of set the stage for other states to follow the legal approach that these four states are taking in this case. And of course, you know, the outcome of one, any one specific trial maybe isn't going to be the end-all be-all for META. This is a very wealthy company with lots of money, but every one of these cases it loses, it puts it on the hook for more money that it has to pay out in damages. It's having to pay these lawyers to try these cases. And then again, I think the biggest change that we could see here in something that makes this state case different from some of the individual cases that we've seen, like the one that META lost in L.A.

is the states really do have the ability to ask the court to sort of go inside of these companies and demand that they make changes to how their platforms operate. And that could impact their business model. I thought it was really interesting in META's most recent earnings report. They actually acknowledged that these youth-related trials could pose a risk of material loss to the company. So they're even telling their investors, look, we may lose money here. What are the prosecutors' biggest challenges in putting this case for forward. Well, I think one of the big challenges is an argument that META is putting forward the look. There is no scientific evidence linking social media to addiction and child harms.

Meta is saying maybe there's correlation here, but there is not causation. And so I think that is the thing that, you know, the prosecutors are going to have to try to convince the jury is sure, maybe the science is undetermined here. And yet, META is still responsible for causing these harms. I do think that we'll hear from researchers who have studied the impact of social media on young people. And again, we've already seen two juries siding with the plaintiffs. This jury may fall differently. And one other thing I should say, Lindsay, that's important to know here is that in this state case, a jury is an advisory jury.

And that means that they'll listen to all the evidence here. They'll make a decision on a verdict and what they think the damages should be. But ultimately, it will be up to the judge to make the final decision in this case and to sort read the law and decide where we're to fall on this. And so that may make it a little bit different than some of these true jury trials that we've seen before. It will be fascinating to watch. Thanks for this, Claire. Thanks so much. Claire Duffy is a tech reporter for CNN and host of the CNN podcast Terms of Service with Claire Duffy. She was in New York. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.