Judge Refuses to Dismiss 29 States’ Child Safety Lawsuit Against Meta

A federal judge refused Monday night to dismiss the Meta child safety lawsuit from 29 US state attorneys general, ruling the company violated federal children’s privacy law. The states accuse Meta of designing Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children while concealing the harms. A trial on claims from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey is now set for August 18.

US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland denied Meta’s motion to dismiss claims of deception, unfair practices, and violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. In a 38-page decision, she also granted the states summary judgment on one COPPA point, finding it undisputed that Meta failed to meet the law’s notice and parental consent requirements. Meta said it “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and called the underlying claims unfounded. The trial will be the first courtroom test of the states’ theory that Meta built its platforms to hook young users.

Judge Refuses to Toss 29 States’ Case Against Meta

The ruling landed late Monday in the Northern District of California. The 29 state attorneys general had asked the court to keep their case moving toward trial.

They allege Meta engineered features to maximise the time and attention of young users, then hid what internal research showed about the harms. State lawyers say the conduct violated the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and state consumer protection statutes. The complaint targets both Facebook and Instagram.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the decision a “critical win” in holding Meta accountable for a mental health crisis among American children. New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said she was “thrilled” the case will proceed to trial, in Davenport’s reaction to the trial clearing. New York Attorney General Letitia James wrote on social media that her office would “continue our case and keep fighting to protect our kids online.” The complaint was originally filed in 2023 by a bipartisan coalition of states.

Meta has rejected the framing across the board. The company argues its platforms serve a general audience, not children under 13.

The COPPA Finding That Cuts Deeper Than Dismissal

The headline loss for Meta was the motion to dismiss. The deeper loss came on the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act claim. Rogers granted the states summary judgment on whether Meta met the law’s parental consent requirements.

COPPA governs how online services handle the data of children under 13. It requires clear notice and verifiable parental consent before any data collection.

That ruling on a single point removes one question Meta had hoped to argue at trial. The judge found no genuine factual dispute about the consent process. Meta’s system for handling suspected under-13 accounts, the court ruled, did not satisfy the statute. The finding now sits on the record before a jury hears a word of testimony on the broader addiction claims.

What the 38-Page Ruling Preserves for Trial

In her 38-page ruling Meta lost Monday night, Rogers found material factual disputes that prevent the case from ending before trial. She wrote that the attorneys general had offered a plausible reading of Meta’s public statements. She sent the question of whether those statements were untrue to a jury.

• Deception: allegations that Meta falsely denied designing platforms to hook kids
• Unfair practices: claims under state consumer protection statutes
• COPPA: federal children’s privacy law claims, including the partial summary judgment on the consent question
• Targeting: allegations that Meta “partially” aimed its platforms at children

The court sided with Meta on one narrow front. Rogers accepted the company’s argument that suspending accounts of suspected under-13 users does not, by itself, confirm those users are underage.

The AGs present a reasonable interpretation of [Meta’s] statements that Facebook and Instagram are not designed in ways that cause teens to compulsively use the platforms to their detriment. To the extent plaintiffs’ evidence shows that the platforms are in fact designed to do just that, a jury could reasonably find the statements were untrue to a reasonable person.

US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers wrote that passage in the 38-page ruling issued late Monday in Oakland, California. She also oversees the broader multidistrict litigation over child safety on social platforms. Rogers will preside over the August trial.

What survives is the heart of the states’ theory. The jury will now weigh whether Facebook and Instagram are in fact designed to drive compulsive use in teens. It will consider whether Meta’s denials were untrue, and whether the company “partially” marketed to children. The decision does not decide any of those questions; it clears the path for a jury to consider them.

Meta’s Two-Part Defense, Tested in Court

Meta said it strongly disagrees with the ruling. A company spokesperson defended the company’s record on young people in a written statement. The statement was released after the 38-page decision became public.

We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.

The statement came from a Meta spokesperson on Tuesday. Meta is based in Menlo Park, California, and runs Facebook and Instagram.

Meta’s legal defense has two prongs. First, the company argues social media addiction is not an established psychiatric condition, so its public statements denying addictiveness cannot be legally false. Second, Meta says Facebook and Instagram are aimed at a general audience, not specifically at children under 13, so COPPA’s parental consent rules do not apply.

The first prong survived in part. Rogers found material factual disputes over whether the platforms are in fact addictive and whether Meta’s denials were untrue. The second prong found a narrower opening. The judge accepted Meta’s argument that suspending accounts of suspected under-13 users does not confirm those users are underage, a procedural point that lets Meta continue to argue it does not knowingly collect data from children under 13.

Meta is also lobbying Congress for immunity from lawsuits alleging online harm to children. That separate push runs in parallel with the August trial. The company points to its Instagram Teen Accounts with default limits on contact, content, and screen time as proof of its commitments to young users.

The August 18 Trial and What Rides on It

Jury selection in the four-state case is set to begin August 12, with opening statements scheduled for August 18. The trial will run in Oakland, before Rogers.

An earlier jury in a related matter already found Meta’s platforms harmful to children, a signal the company will weigh as August approaches. That earlier verdict did not carry into Rogers’s courtroom. The August jury will weigh the case brought by four states, applying the “reasonable person” standard the judge laid out. Its verdict will not bind the multidistrict docket of more than 2,600 plaintiffs.

Beyond Meta: A Sector on Trial

The August case targets only Meta. But the same courtroom is the staging ground for a much larger fight over social platforms and children. Rogers oversees multidistrict litigation involving more than 2,600 plaintiffs naming not just Facebook and Instagram but Google’s YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok.

The wider docket asks the same core question the August trial will press on Meta: did these companies design products that addict children, and did they hide what they knew. The August verdict will be the first federal jury reading of the addiction theory against any major platform. None of those verdicts will bind the multidistrict docket. Each one will sharpen the litigation pressure across the sector.

Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube face parallel design-and-deception claims in the multidistrict docket. None of those companies has had the same summary-judgment treatment on a child-privacy claim. Each will be watching what happens in Oakland in August.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the federal judge decide in the Meta child safety case?

US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Meta’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit by 29 US state attorneys general that alleges the company designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and concealed the harms. The case will move forward on the theory that Meta knowingly hid what it knew about harm to minors.

What is the COPPA ruling against Meta?

Rogers granted the states summary judgment on a single COPPA question. She ruled it undisputed that Meta’s consent process for under-13 users failed to satisfy the statute. The finding removes one defense Meta had hoped to argue in front of a jury. Other COPPA claims remain in the case.

When does the Meta child safety trial begin?

Jury selection is set for August 12, with opening statements on August 18 in Oakland, California. The trial will be heard by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. It is the first courtroom test of the 29-state coalition’s case.

How is Meta defending itself?

Meta’s defense has two parts: that social media addiction is not a recognized psychiatric condition, and that its platforms serve a general audience. The company also points to its Instagram Teen Accounts with default limits on contact, content, and screen time. The judge rejected Meta’s motion but accepted one narrow argument, that suspending accounts of suspected under-13 users does not confirm they are underage. The bulk of the case now heads to a jury.

How large is the broader child-safety litigation?

Rogers oversees multidistrict litigation with more than 2,600 plaintiffs, including individuals, school districts, and local governments. That wider docket names Facebook, Instagram, Google’s YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok.