Meta is facing arguably the most significant legal challenge in its history. A coalition of 29 U.S. state attorneys general alleges the company intentionally designed addictive systems despite knowing they pose risks to users, and the trial began in California last week.
Some projections estimate more than $1 trillion in damage claims if the finding goes against Meta, per Reuters. Against a market cap of roughly $1.5 trillion — before accounting for the hundreds of billions poured into AI development — that would be crippling.
The start of the trial was covered in Meta Goes to Trial Against 29 State Attorneys General — Trillion-Dollar Exposure. This piece breaks down the two claims actually being argued.
At its core, the case turns on whether social media apps can be habit-forming in a medically diagnosable sense.
Meta's defense is direct: social media addiction is not a recognized psychological condition verified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and therefore cannot be a basis for legal liability.
A 2017 Nature paper approved by the U.S. Surgeon General found the neurological impact of social media use resembles other addictions — substance abuse, gambling — in terms of brain anatomy alterations.
Gambling addiction has been a recognized condition since 1980. It is nonetheless rarely diagnosed, because patients typically present with co-occurring depression and anxiety that become the treatment focus.
That is likely Meta's main line. Social media addiction is not a recognized condition in itself, and any negative impacts stem from other diagnosable conditions rather than from social media use alone.
Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke argued in her 2021 book Dopamine Nation that dopamine addiction caused by social networks carries significant negative effects. Social connection has been "druggified" by these apps, she said, leaving users vulnerable to compulsive overconsumption: "These apps can cause the release of large amounts of dopamine into our brains' reward pathway all at once, just like heroin, or meth, or alcohol. They do that by amplifying the feel-good properties that attract humans to each other in the first place."
Meta's counter: dopamine addiction may exist, social media addiction does not, and while apps may contribute, contribution does not rise to legal liability.
A 2024 paper in the National Library of Medicine treats social media addiction as real, characterized by "excessive screen time, compulsive checking, and detrimental effects on real-life relationships and responsibilities." But the same paper lists compounding drivers — psychological factors like low self-esteem and mental health issues, technological mechanisms like infinite scrolling and personalized notifications, and social influences including peer pressure and exposure to idealized content — which again gives Meta room to argue the underlying causes are other recognized conditions.
The second claim rests on internal research leaked in 2021 by former Meta employee Frances Haugen, who gave thousands of pages of proprietary documents to the Wall Street Journal.
The resulting "Facebook Files" series alleged that Meta:
Meta refuted the evidence as partial research elements or initiatives that did not represent the full scope of its internal work.
Former Facebook engineering director Arturo Bejar said management repeatedly ignored recommendations to implement systems protecting young users, focusing on growth instead. He was the first witness called at trial last week.
Former Facebook public policy director Sarah Wynn-Williams published Careless People, claiming leadership repeatedly downplayed ethical and safety risks in pursuit of global expansion. Per the BBC, she was recently barred from speaking publicly about those claims due to ongoing legal action from Meta.
Meta has pushed back on former employees' claims for years and has been effective at framing them as having ulterior motives.
Former employees are only one element. Meta lost a comparable California case in March, brought by a Facebook and Instagram user who said the company built systems that harmed her.
In that case both Meta and Google-owned YouTube were found to have ignored known risks to maximize business opportunities. The jury ruled that addictive elements of social platforms harmed the plaintiff's mental health and awarded $3 million in compensatory plus $3 million in punitive damages — $4.2 million payable by Meta and $1.8 million by YouTube.
The key difference: that was a binding jury trial. This one has an advisory jury, meaning the final decision rests with the presiding judge.
That could matter enormously. A jury of ordinary people is arguably more swayed by the ills of social media and less moved by legal technicalities. A judge is the reverse.
Full liability on the maximum scope of claims looks unlikely, as does the maximum compensatory figure. Even so, the findings could drive significant changes in how Meta operates.
Named possibilities include reviewing addictive elements such as infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations, implementing usage time limits, and offering algorithm opt-outs.
For marketers that is not litigation news — it is advance notice of a surface change. If infinite scroll gets constrained and algorithmic recommendation becomes opt-out, reach mechanics change with it. For how youth usage restrictions actually behave in practice, see Why Teen Social Media Bans Keep Failing — Six Months of Australia's Test.
Nor is the litigation Meta's only regulatory front. Set against smart glasses being banned across venues and jurisdictions — Meta's Smart Glasses Are Getting Banned in More Places — Even as Sales Climb — the picture is of regulatory exposure attached to the company's whole product line at once.
Two claims: whether social media addiction is a medically diagnosable condition, and whether Meta knowingly designed addictive systems despite understanding the risks.
That social media addiction is not a condition verified by the DSM and therefore cannot ground legal liability, with negative impacts attributable to other diagnosable conditions like depression and anxiety.
That was a binding jury trial, which Meta lost, leaving it liable for $4.2 million. This trial has an advisory jury, so the presiding judge makes the final ruling.
Reviews of addictive design elements like infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendation, usage time limits, and algorithm opt-outs — all of which would alter organic reach mechanics for marketers.
To apply what you just read to your own site, start with a free audit of where things are now.
A strategist replies within 24 hours on business days.
New Zealand's Online Safety Bill would require Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Facebook to verify users are over 16. Australia went first, and its six-month review found almost no measurable effect.
TikTok now lets users decide what happens to their account after they die: nominate a caretaker or have the profile deleted. An Oxford study projected Facebook could host 4.9 billion deceased profiles by 2100.
Threads is testing synced podcast transcripts embedded in-stream, letting people follow along without audio. It arrives as 58% of Americans listen to podcasts and video podcasts overtake audio-only.