An appeals court rejected Meta and TikTok's immunity claim, paving the way for a mass trial over alleged addiction promotion in children. State attorneys argue the company deliberately designed platforms to boost revenue.
On Wednesday, August 12, 2026, jury selection began in Oakland, California, for a trial that could cost tech giant Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, up to $1.4 trillion. The lawsuit was filed by the states of California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, and the trial marks the first in a series of proceedings from a mass consolidated litigation involving more than 3,000 lawsuits.
Meta and TikTok's attempt to halt the process by invoking immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act failed. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected their request. "Because Section 230 provides only a defense to liability, not immunity from suit, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's decisions on an interlocutory basis. We therefore dismiss Meta's and TikTok's appeals," the judges wrote in their ruling. The panel specifically noted that "TikTok did not independently brief any issue but merely joined Meta's arguments."
The case is already drawing comparisons to the historic U.S. government crackdown on tobacco companies in 1998. "It really feels like tobacco in the 1990s," Vincent Joralemon, director of Berkeley's Center for Law and Life Sciences Policy, told AFP. While the legal argument in this case revolves around business practices, similar to the tobacco lawsuit three decades ago, Joralemon emphasizes that "the huge problem here is reputational damage," not just financial penalties. He added that "putting the CEO on the witness stand can be quite devastating."
Meta's founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is among the key witnesses expected to testify during the trial. Nora Freeman Engstrom, a law professor and associate dean at Stanford, said the case could be "the beginning of a broader reckoning" for Meta, stressing the importance of seeing "the gap" between what Meta knew privately and what it publicly disclosed.
The attorneys general of the four states said in a joint filing: "Meta's concern about the potential size of damages sought rings hollow in light of the evidence the states will present at trial. We will prove that Meta deceived the public about the safety of its platforms while deliberately designing them to encourage compulsive use and increase revenue."
Plaintiffs allege that features like infinite scrolling, excessive notifications, and "like" counters were intentionally created to keep young users on the platforms as long as possible. Meta defends itself by arguing that "social media addiction" is not an officially recognized psychiatric diagnosis and notes that it has developed more than 30 tools to support teens and parents. A Meta spokesperson told AFP that the company "strongly disagrees with these allegations" and is "confident that the evidence will show our long-standing commitment to supporting young people."
This is not the first time Meta has faced financial consequences. In New Mexico, a court ordered it to pay $942 million for youth mental health care and a penalty for creating a public nuisance. In a separate case in Los Angeles, Meta and YouTube were found liable for causing mental health harm to a young woman, who was awarded $6 million in damages. In May, Snap, TikTok, YouTube, and Meta reached a $27 million settlement with a Kentucky school district to avoid a trial that was meant to serve as a precedent for about 1,200 similar lawsuits.
The trial comes amid growing global concern over children's online safety. Australia has already banned social media for those under 16, and similar measures are being considered in the United Kingdom. Opening statements are expected on August 18, with the trial itself scheduled to begin on August 19, 2026.
