Attorneys challenging Meta in a landmark US trial have described the company’s business model with a four-word phrase: hook, hold, harvest, and hide. In opening arguments on Tuesday in Oakland, California, Megan O’Neill, a lawyer for the state of California, argued that the owner of Facebook and Instagram draws users in, keeps them engaged, collects their data, and conceals the truth from the public. She added that this approach worked especially well with children.
California and 28 other US states have sued the company, valued at roughly $1.36tn, alleging it built addictive products that harm minors. The case, heard by eight jurors, centers on claims that Meta gathered data from children under 13 without parental consent, violating federal child-privacy laws and state consumer-protection statutes. If found liable, Meta could face damages of up to $200bn — an amount said to equal the company’s 2025 annual revenue — and could be forced to redesign its products to make them safer for young users, a change that could reshape its business model.
Meta has denied the allegations. Spokesperson Liza Crenshaw said the states were “chasing an outlandish payout” rather than focusing on facts or law. Meta attorney Paul Schmidt acknowledged there is “no dispute” that people can struggle with social media, but said the company has introduced tools to address the issue, prohibits under-13 registrations, and has deactivated over 1 million accounts belonging to young users.
The trial is expected to run six to eight weeks, led by attorneys from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey. The jury’s role is advisory, with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers responsible for the final verdict and any damages. The case is being closely watched because Meta has already lost two similar lawsuits this year: in March, it was ordered to pay nearly $1bn to New Mexico over child sexual exploitation on its platforms, and it was found liable for designing addictive products that hooked a young woman, who was awarded more than $4m.
The first week’s most prominent witness was Arturo Béjar, a former Meta safety engineer who worked there between 2009 and 2021. Béjar testified that his teenage daughter received unwanted sexual advances, explicit images, and misogynistic abuse on Instagram, and that reporting such content was either ineffective or impossible. He described Meta’s approach to child safety as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy. Testimony included an email he sent to CEO Mark Zuckerberg in 2021 outlining a survey in which 51% of teen users reported bad or harmful experiences within a week, while only 0.02% of offending content was removed. Béjar said he sent the data because “when Mark makes something a priority, mountains move,” but Zuckerberg never replied.
Meta had attempted to block Béjar from testifying, filing motions to strike his exhibits and exclude him, all rejected. In a statement, Meta questioned his credibility, saying he exaggerated his role and took credit for work he didn’t do. Jurors also heard recorded deposition testimony from former user-experience researchers Elena Davis and Natalie Troxel, and brief in-person testimony from San Diego State University psychology professor Jean Twenge, with more testimony scheduled next week.