Meta's COPPA Trial Opens in Oakland: 29 States Say Zuckerberg's Company Hooked Kids, Meta Says Users Are to Blame

A new front opens against Meta

Meta already lost two major child-safety cases this year: a jury verdict in a Los Angeles bellwether case and a nearly $940 million public-nuisance judgment in New Mexico. Both are being appealed. Now, starting Tuesday, August 18, Meta is on trial again, this time in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, facing a coalition of 29 state attorneys general over alleged violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA.

This case is different from the earlier ones. It's not about a single plaintiff's mental health or crimes committed on Facebook. It's a federal privacy law fight, led by attorneys general from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, with 25 more states joined in. The claim: Meta knew millions of children under 13 were on Instagram and Facebook, collected their emails, phone numbers, and face images without parental consent, and told parents and regulators otherwise, according to KQED.

What each side says happened

California Deputy Attorney General Megan O'Neill opened for the states on Tuesday, telling the court that jurors would see "how many features work both individually and together to keep people in the apps," according to KQED. O'Neill argued Meta had its own internal research showing kids had "bad, even traumatic, experiences" on its platforms, and that the company buried it. "Time and time again, profits won," she told the court.

Meta's lead attorney, Paul Schmidt, countered by walking through the safety features Meta has built into its apps over the years, per reporting from Wired's Jason Parham, who sat in the courtroom in Oakland. Schmidt also placed some responsibility on users themselves, saying there's no dispute that "some teens struggle to manage their time" on social media, and that people will inevitably "post negative content."

Meta is also leaning on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, arguing it can't be held liable for what users post on its platforms, according to Wired. The company denies its public statements about how Instagram and Facebook work were deceptive.

The number everyone's fixated on, and why it's probably wrong

Court filings show Meta has claimed the states could be seeking penalties as high as $1.4 trillion, roughly equal to the company's entire stock market value, according to Engadget and The Guardian. Meta's own spokesperson called that figure "outlandish."

But that number needs context. Chief District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has already called Meta's $1.4 trillion estimate "unreasonable," according to remarks reported by Law360 and cited by Engadget. She's also pushed back on Meta's own counter-estimate of $4 million as too low. Neither side's number appears to be where this actually lands. The Guardian reports the states' legal officials are seeking $200 billion in damages, a figure that's enormous but far short of Meta's doomsday framing.

The Independent's characterization that Meta "could be fined up to $1.4 trillion" states Meta's own courtroom argument as if it were an independent assessment of likely damages, without noting the judge already rejected that figure as unreasonable. That's a meaningful gap: it's Meta's defense-lawyer framing, not a neutral damages estimate.

Why this case matters beyond Meta

Meta also faces other significant legal exposure. The company said it spent $2.4 billion on legal costs in the second quarter of 2026 alone, according to Engadget. It's facing thousands of other suits from families and school districts over alleged social media addiction harms, with the Los Angeles bellwether case having already produced a verdict against Meta for a "defective products" claim, per The Guardian.

If the states win this federal case, the remedies sought go beyond money. Attorneys general have asked for structural changes to Instagram and Facebook, including tighter age verification and restrictions on features like infinite scroll, according to The Independent. Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are both expected to testify as the trial proceeds.

Meta's defense isn't baseless on its face. Placing some responsibility on users and parents for managing screen time isn't an unreasonable argument, and Section 230 has protected platforms from content-liability claims for nearly three decades for a reason: it was designed to keep websites from being sued into oblivion over every post a user makes. Whether that shield extends to claims about deliberately addictive design, rather than content moderation, is exactly what this trial will test.

The 25 additional states that joined the COPPA claims haven't gone to trial yet; their cases will proceed separately, according to KQED. Whatever verdict comes out of Judge Gonzalez Rogers' courtroom will likely shape how those cases and the broader wave of litigation against Meta play out from here.