Instagram has become a regular part of life for many US teenagers. According to a December 2025 Pew Research Center survey, 55% of teens aged 13 to 17 said they used Instagram daily, while 12% said they used it almost constantly.
But what if keeping young users scrolling was not simply a side effect of the platform?
Twenty-nine US states are taking Meta to court, alleging that the company deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to keep children and teenagers engaged while putting profit ahead of safety. Meta has rejected the allegations.
So, what evidence are the states presenting, and what could this trial mean for Instagram?
What Is Meta Accused Of?
The case centres on claims that Meta deliberately designed features on Facebook and Instagram to make the platforms difficult for children and teenagers to stop using.
The states allege that Meta knew young users could face risks from its platforms but continued to prioritise engagement.
They also accuse the company of misleading the public about those risks and failing to adequately protect children.
The lawsuit includes allegations that Meta improperly collected and used personal information from children under 13, potentially violating the US Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, known as COPPA.
However, there is an important legal distinction.
All 29 states are pursuing the federal privacy claims. The allegations that Meta designed its platforms to be addictive and misled consumers about their safety are being brought under state laws by four states: California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey.
What Does The Internal Evidence Show?
Internal Meta communications are a major part of the states' case.
Lawyers for the states have pointed to an email that reportedly described "teen time spent" as a goal.
They have also highlighted private comments from employees who compared Instagram to a drug and themselves to pushers.
The states argue that such evidence supports their claim that Meta understood how strongly its products could engage young users.
But those comments are disputed evidence, not a court finding that Meta deliberately set out to harm children.
A former Meta engineer, Arturo Bejar, has also testified in the trial. Bejar worked at Meta from 2009 to 2015 and later returned as a consultant. He told the court that Meta had internal research showing problems experienced by young users and that the company did not adequately respond to concerns he raised.
The states are using his testimony to argue that Meta knew about potential harms but did not do enough to address them.
What Does Meta Say?
Meta has rejected the allegations.
The company argues that there is no clear evidence establishing a direct link between adolescent social media use and poorer wellbeing.
Meta has also argued that private comments made by individual employees do not prove that the company designed its products to harm children.
Its lawyers have pointed to efforts to identify and remove under-13 accounts. During the trial, Meta said its systems had flagged 1.4 million accounts over four years where users appeared to be under 13.
Meta's position is that protecting young users is difficult in practice, particularly when children can misrepresent their age.
What Could Happen To Instagram?
If the states succeed, the consequences could go beyond a financial penalty.
They are seeking changes to the way Meta operates its platforms, including restrictions on features such as infinite scrolling and likes, tighter controls for younger users and stronger measures to prevent children under 13 from accessing the platforms.
The states argue that such changes are necessary to reduce risks to young users. Meta has not agreed to those changes.
The case could therefore affect features that millions of people encounter every day on Instagram and Facebook.
Will The Jury Decide Meta's Fate?
Not by itself.
The case is being heard in federal court in Oakland, California, before US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
The jury will issue an advisory verdict. Judge Rogers will make the final decision on whether Meta is liable and what remedies should apply.
That makes the case particularly significant. The court is not simply being asked whether teenagers spend too much time on Instagram. It is being asked whether Meta's conduct violated consumer protection and privacy laws.
Why This Case Could Affect Other Apps
Meta is not the only technology company facing legal scrutiny over children's use of social media.
Snap, TikTok parent ByteDance and YouTube parent Alphabet are also facing lawsuits over alleged harms to young users.
That means the outcome of the Meta case could influence how similar claims against other social media companies are argued and decided.
For now, none of the central allegations in the case should be treated as established facts.
The trial is testing whether the evidence supports the states' claims that Meta knowingly designed its platforms to maximise engagement among young users while failing to adequately protect them.
And that leaves the court with a much bigger question: how much responsibility should a social media company carry for the way its products keep children coming back?
TL;DR | News At Glance
What is Meta facing?
A landmark US trial over allegations that Facebook and Instagram were designed to keep young users engaged while failing to adequately protect them.
Who brought the case?
Attorneys general from 29 US states. The federal privacy claims involve all 29 states, while four states are pursuing separate state-law claims over platform design and consumer protection.
What does Meta deny?
Meta rejects the allegations and argues that its products were not designed to harm children.
What evidence are the states presenting?
They are relying on internal documents, employee communications and testimony from former Meta engineer Arturo Bejar.
Could Instagram have to change?
If the states ultimately succeed, the court could order changes to features and safeguards on Meta's platforms.
Who makes the final decision?
The jury will issue an advisory verdict, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will decide whether Meta is liable and what remedies apply.
