As opening statements get underway in a landmark trial over claims that Meta Platforms (META.O) misled the public about the safety of Instagram and Facebook for young users and violated child privacy laws, one of the biggest fights in the case has already been resolved: whether a bipartisan group of U.S. states could present their claims together.
The states pushed for a single trial covering state consumer protection and federal privacy claims brought by 29 attorneys general, while Meta argued for a series of smaller trials grouping states that have similar laws.
The fight was about more than courtroom logistics. The states argued that the case centers on company-wide decisions affecting young users across the country and seeks nationwide changes to Meta's platforms, and that jurors should hear a single story about Meta's actions. Meta countered that jurors should evaluate states' claims separately because the underlying laws differ and warned that a combined proceeding could blur important distinctions among the claims.
Ultimately, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers adopted a hybrid approach for the multi-week trial, allowing Colorado, California, Kentucky and New Jersey to try their state law claims together, while also including the federal law claims brought by all of the states. Although Rogers will decide the case, she appointed an advisory jury whose findings may inform her final ruling.
Meta has called the allegations unsubstantiated and said it stands by its work to protect teen users of its platforms.
'A PROJECTION OF UNITY'
Legal experts said in a case against a company as well-capitalized as Meta, a multistate coalition gives the states the ability to pool resources and share expertise, and it may improve their credibility with the jury and the judge. They said attorneys general have used the strategy repeatedly in cases against the tobacco and opioid industries to strengthen their bargaining power and to present evidence of conduct that allegedly affected consumers across the country.
“A jury will see all these states banding together to do this, and that presents kind of like a projection of unity,” said Prentiss Cox, a former assistant state attorney general in Minnesota who is now a law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. “Elected officials on different sides of a partisan world can agree that this is a problem that needs solving.”
The states' lawsuit, which was filed in 2023, stems from a multistate investigation into Instagram and Facebook's impact on young users. The states generally allege that Meta knowingly designed features in Instagram and Facebook to hook young users while assuring the public that the platforms were safe, conduct they argue violated state consumer protection laws.
A large portion of the states are also suing under a federal law, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, claiming Meta failed to obtain parental consent before collecting personal information from young users.
In pushing for smaller trials, Meta argued that a combined proceeding would require jurors to understand the different legal standards for each state claim, making it harder to fairly evaluate each one. The company also said it planned to defend against the claims with state-specific evidence, an approach it argued would be more difficult in a larger consolidated trial.
“The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled,” a spokesperson for the company said in a statement ahead of trial. "Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout."
Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman called the case the largest consumer protection lawsuit in American history.
“AGs are in the perfect position to get this done," Coleman said in a statement. "We did it with the Tobacco Settlement in the 1990s. We did it with the companies behind the opioid crisis. We’ll do it again with Meta.”
