Meta has suffered an important pretrial setback in a landmark federal case examining whether Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed in ways that could addict young users and whether the company misled the public about risks to children. Just before the trial’s opening, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the states pursuing the case can rely on a crucial former Meta employee and present selected evidence during their opening arguments.
The lawsuit is being pursued by a multistate coalition of attorneys general, with California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey leading the trial. They accuse Meta of using product features and engagement strategies that exploit young users while failing to adequately disclose potential safety risks. The states also allege violations involving the collection of information from children under 13. Meta denies the allegations and maintains that it has invested extensively in tools and policies designed to protect younger users.
One of the most important witnesses is Arturo Béjar, a former Meta engineer and consultant who has become a prominent critic of the company’s approach to youth safety. Béjar has argued that Meta’s internal systems did not adequately capture the harmful experiences young people encountered on its platforms and that senior executives were made aware of safety concerns.
Meta attempted to prevent Béjar from testifying, arguing that Signal messages involving him and other insiders had automatically disappeared despite obligations to preserve potentially relevant communications. But Gonzalez Rogers rejected the company’s attempt to remove him from the case, characterizing the effort as a last-ditch attempt to eliminate a strong witness for the states.
The judge delivered another significant victory to the attorneys general by allowing them to display selected documents and other evidence during opening statements, even though much of that material will formally enter the trial record later through witness testimony. Meta objected, arguing that some documents still involve unresolved questions concerning hearsay, business records, Section 230, foundation and potential prejudice.
These decisions could shape how the states introduce their case to the court. By using internal material from the beginning and presenting Béjar as a central witness, prosecutors can immediately focus attention on what Meta’s employees and executives allegedly knew about the experiences of young users.
The trial is especially consequential because it is the first of thousands of related federal actions against Meta to reach this stage. It also follows major courtroom losses for the company in separate state cases in New Mexico and California, both of which Meta is appealing.
The potential financial consequences are enormous. The federal lawsuit seeks substantial damages as well as injunctive relief that could force significant changes to Meta’s business practices. Meta has described the states’ financial demands as disproportionate and argues that the underlying claims are unsupported.
Beyond money, however, the case could influence how social-media platforms are designed for children and teenagers. Features intended to increase engagement—including recommendation systems, notifications and other mechanisms that encourage repeated use—are increasingly being examined through the lens of youth safety and consumer-protection law. The states argue that Meta should be held accountable for design decisions they say contributed to harmful or compulsive behavior; Meta disputes that characterization.
The dispute is therefore developing into a major test of Big Tech accountability. A ruling against Meta could encourage additional lawsuits and potentially accelerate changes to youth protections across the social-media industry. For now, the judge’s decision ensures that one of the states’ strongest witnesses—and some of their most important evidence—will remain at the center of a trial that could have lasting consequences for Meta and the future of social media for young Americans.
