Imagine opening Instagram and reaching the bottom of your feed. Or having to press play on every Reel yourself. Stories no longer disappear after 24 hours, beauty filters are restricted, and the algorithm has less control over what you see next.
That version of Instagram may sound almost unrecognizable, but it could become a reality if Meta loses a landmark lawsuit brought by California and 28 other states.
The states accuse Meta of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to keep children and teenagers online while concealing what it knew about the potential harms. Infinite scrolling, autoplaying videos, disappearing Stories, beauty filters, push notifications, visible “likes,” and algorithm-driven feeds are all under scrutiny.
That means this case isn’t only about whether Meta owes an enormous amount of money, but it could determine whether Instagram and Facebook are allowed to keep working the way we know them.
“Hook, hold, harvest, hide.”
The trial began Aug. 18 in Oakland, California, and is expected to last six to eight weeks. California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are leading this phase of the case, with support from 25 other coalition members, including Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Wisconsin. During opening statements, California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill summed up Meta’s alleged strategy with four words: “hook, hold, harvest, hide.”
According to the states, Meta “hooks” young users with psychologically compelling features, “holds” their attention for as long as possible, “harvests” their data, and then “hides” evidence of the resulting harm from the public.
The lawsuit goes beyond the familiar argument that teenagers simply spend too much time on their phones. In their federal complaint, the states allege Meta deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to exploit young people’s lower impulse control and heightened sensitivity to rewards. They also accuse the company of collecting personal information from children under 13 without parental consent, in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and misleading parents and users about the safety of its platforms.
If the states prevail, Meta may have to do more than write a massive check. The attorneys general are seeking injunctive and monetary relief intended to address Meta’s alleged conduct and break that cycle of compulsive use. That could mean removing or substantially redesigning infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithm-heavy feeds, beauty filters, Stories, and other features accused of keeping young people glued to their screens.
And those changes may not stop at children’s accounts. Maintaining different versions of Instagram and Facebook for different ages and countries would be complicated and expensive, so Meta could end up changing the apps for everyone. Other platforms may follow its lead, too — especially if they think similar lawsuits are headed their way.
Mashable Light Speed
“This trial is potentially the end of social media as we know it,” Forrester principal analyst Kate Winick told CNBC.
“An outlandish payout”
Of course, Meta is also facing a staggering financial threat. The company has warned that potential damages could reach approximately $1.4 trillion, although state attorneys have reportedly described roughly $200 billion as a more realistic figure. The larger sum is close to Meta’s total market value, while even the lower estimate would rival the company’s annual revenue.
Meta has denied the allegations. “Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout,” company spokesperson Liza Crenshaw told The Guardian.
During opening statements, Meta attorney Paul Schmidt argued that the company has acknowledged people can struggle with social media use and has developed tools intended to help. He also said Meta does not allow children under 13 to create accounts and has disabled more than 1 million accounts belonging to underage users.
The states, however, are attempting to show that Meta knew its existing safeguards were not enough and failed to act when employees raised concerns. One of their most prominent witnesses is Arturo Béjar, a former Meta safety engineer who worked at the company during two separate periods between 2009 and 2021 and said he briefed Zuckerberg more than 100 times.
Béjar testified Aug. 18 and 19 that the issue became personal after his teenage daughter received unwanted sexual advances, explicit images, and misogynistic insults on Instagram. When she tried to report the abuse, he said, the platform’s existing tools were either ineffective or unavailable. Béjar described Meta’s approach to child safety as a “don’t ask, don’t tell strategy.”
During his testimony, attorneys showed the jury a 2021 email Béjar sent to Zuckerberg about Meta’s own internal research. The survey, which questioned nearly 240,000 Instagram users, found that more than half of teenage respondents had encountered at least one harmful experience during the previous seven days. Béjar also testified that content connected to those experiences was removed only 0.02 percent of the time. He said he sent the findings directly to Zuckerberg because he had seen the company move quickly when its CEO made something a priority, but Zuckerberg never responded.
Meta has disputed Béjar’s account and unsuccessfully tried to prevent him from testifying. The company later told The Guardian that he had overstated his role at Meta and taken credit for work he did not perform.
The trial is far from over. Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are both expected to take the stand before it wraps up. The jury will weigh the evidence, but its verdict is only advisory; U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately decide whether Meta is liable and what it may have to pay.
And Meta isn’t the only platform with reason to pay attention. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has said YouTube and Snap could face similar cases, meaning any changes forced on Facebook and Instagram may eventually spread across the rest of social media.
And for the first time in years, “You’re all caught up” might actually mean it.
