META CHILD-SAFETY DEFENSE FACES FRESH SCRUTINY AT TRIAL

Developing story: Trial testimony, court rulings, settlement talks and new internal evidence may change the legal and regulatory consequences for Meta.

Meta is defending its child-safety record as a landmark federal trial tests whether Facebook and Instagram harmed young users, while critics argue that many of the company’s protections are incomplete, ineffective or designed around engagement rather than safety. The Associated Press reported Thursday that the dispute has become a major test of how far courts can push social-media companies to change product design.

The trial in California involves claims by states that Meta contributed to the youth mental-health crisis by designing features that get children hooked on Instagram and Facebook. Four lead states are seeking billions in damages and fundamental changes to the apps, while a broader group of states accuses the company of violating child privacy and misleading the public.

Meta denies wrongdoing and says it takes youth safety seriously. The company points to measures including limits on adult messages to teens, warnings around suicide and eating-disorder content, teen account settings and other moderation systems. Its position is that social-media risks are complex and not caused by a simple product-design choice.

Critics say those safeguards do not go far enough. AP reported that safety advocates and whistleblowers argue many features are unavailable, hard to use or insufficiently protective. A 2025 report by former Meta safety executive Arturo Béjar and advocates said a majority of Instagram teen-safety tools were unavailable or ineffective, according to the AP account.

The trial is not limited to whether Meta has safety features. The deeper question is whether the business model rewards time spent, scrolling, notifications and algorithmic engagement in ways that expose minors to harm. If courts accept that argument, the case could force changes to core design features rather than only adding more warnings.

The stakes are broader than Meta. Social-media platforms, AI chatbots and online games are all facing scrutiny over youth safety, age verification and mental-health risks. A strong ruling against Meta could become a template for regulators and state attorneys general pursuing other platforms.

Families and advocates see the trial as a chance to force disclosure of internal documents and decision-making. Meta sees it as an effort to impose liability for complex social and psychological problems that, it argues, cannot be traced directly to its products in the way plaintiffs claim.

What is confirmed is that Meta is defending itself in a major child-safety trial while critics say its protections fall short. What remains unresolved is whether the states can prove legal harm, whether the court orders product changes and whether the case reshapes the safety obligations of social-media platforms.

Fact-check date: August 20, 2026. Article type: News. Sources: Associated Press; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; Meta. Developing note: Trial testimony, court rulings, settlement talks and new internal evidence may change the legal and regulatory consequences for Meta.