Overview
Meta Platforms stated in a court filing that four state attorneys general are seeking approximately $1.4 trillion in penalties, alleging the company built Facebook and Instagram in ways that foster addiction among young users and misrepresented the safety of its platforms. The company included the number in its response to the attorneys general's submissions on how penalties should be calculated if the states prevail at trial.
Magnitude and context
The $1.4 trillion figure - which has not previously been made public - is roughly comparable to Meta's market capitalization, which the filing cites at about $1.5 trillion. Meta said the states' proposed penalty total is unsupported by the evidence and argued in its filing that "A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement."
Claims and legal framing
The trial slated for August in Oakland, California will address claims brought by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey that the company violated their state consumer-protection laws by misleading the public about the safety of Facebook and Instagram and by designing those platforms in ways that harmed young people. The proceeding will also take up claims under the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for several states, according to the filings and court scheduling.
How the states calculated damages
Although the states' penalty calculations remain under seal, court hearings in June revealed that the attorneys general have been multiplying the number of alleged violations by statutory fine amounts established in state law. The states told the court they derived the count of violations from estimates of the number of teenagers and other young users they say were affected by Meta's conduct.
Broader litigation landscape
Twenty-nine states have brought suits in federal court, most asserting that Meta violated COPPA by collecting data from children without adequate parental consent. In addition to the four-state case headed to trial in August, another set of claims from 14 states under their own laws is scheduled to be heard at a separate trial in February.
Meta's defense
Meta has denied the allegations, arguing the attorneys general lack evidence that the company misled consumers about platform addictiveness. The company contends that the concept of "social media addiction" is not an established psychiatric diagnosis, and therefore assertions that its platforms are non-addictive could not be proven false under that theory.
Recent rulings and statements
In a recent ruling, the judge overseeing the case declined to dismiss the trial, finding that factual disputes remain about whether the platforms are addictive, whether Meta intentionally denied designing them that way, and whether it partially targeted children. California Attorney General Rob Bonta responded to that ruling by saying Meta prioritized profits over children’s safety and violated consumer protection laws, and he pledged to hold the company "fully accountable" for its role in what the attorney general described as a teen mental health crisis.
Related cases and verdicts
Meta is not the only technology company facing mass litigation over alleged design features that harm children and teens. Plaintiffs have filed thousands of suits against Meta, Snapchat and its parent Snap Inc., YouTube and Alphabet Inc., and TikTok and ByteDance. Separately, New Mexico tried a case against Meta earlier this year and a jury awarded that state $375 million in March after finding the company had misled New Mexico consumers. A judge in that state is now considering the second phase of the proceedings, which seeks additional damages and injunctive relief to change features across Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp.
Next steps
The Oakland trial before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will proceed in August on the combined set of federal COPPA claims and the state-law consumer protection allegations from California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey. The scope of remedies, including the states' proposed penalty calculations, will be part of what the court evaluates if the plaintiffs prevail.
Note: Filings referenced in court hearings remain sealed, and some calculation details were discussed under seal.