Why states fought to present a united case against Meta over youth social media harms

As the trial on allegations that Meta Platforms concealed the safety of Instagram and Facebook for young users and breached child privacy rules begins, a key issue has already been settled: whether a coalition of U.S. states could argue their cases together. The states requested a single trial addressing both state consumer protection and federal privacy claims filed by 29 attorneys general, while Meta proposed multiple smaller trials grouping states with similar laws.

The dispute was not merely logistical; the states contended the case revolves around company-wide choices impacting young users nationwide and sought a broader impact, suggesting jurors should be presented with one cohesive story about Meta's actions. Meta argued jurors should assess each state's claims independently due to differing laws and warned a unified proceeding could blur crucial differences among the claims.

Eventually, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers opted for a combined approach, permitting Colorado, California, Kentucky, and New Jersey to proceed with their state laws concurrently alongside the federal allegations from all states. Although Rogers will render the verdict, she appointed an advisory jury whose insights might guide her ultimate decision.

The trial's outcome may guide the resolution of remaining states' claims, alter how Facebook and Instagram function, and compel Meta to pay substantial fines. Meta has labeled the accusations as unfounded and affirmed its commitment to safeguarding teenage users of its platforms. Legal experts contend that a multistate coalition in a case against a company as financially robust as Meta enables the states to share resources and knowledge, potentially bolstering their credibility with the jury and judge.

They noted that attorneys general have employed this tactic successfully in lawsuits against the tobacco and opioid sectors to bolster their negotiating power and illustrate evidence of conduct that allegedly affected consumers nationwide. "A jury will witness all these states joining forces to address this issue, conveying a sense of unity," explained Prentiss Cox, a former Minnesota state attorney general and law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

"Elected officials from different political backgrounds can concur on the urgency of this matter." The lawsuit, filed in 2023, originated from a joint investigation into Instagram and Facebook's influence on young users. The states generally claim Meta intentionally engineered features in Instagram and Facebook to captivate young users while reassuring the public the platforms were secure, an assertion the states argue violates state consumer protection laws.

A significant number of the states are also suing under the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, alleging Meta failed to secure parental consent before gathering personal data from minors. In requesting smaller trials, Meta contended that a consolidated proceeding would necessitate jurors to grasp the distinct legal standards for each state claim, making it challenging to fairly assess each one.

The company also stated it would defend the claims using state-specific evidence, a strategy it believed would be more cumbersome in a larger consolidated trial. Meta's spokesperson remarked that the states lacked evidence of individuals in their states being misled. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman characterized the case as the most substantial consumer protection lawsuit in U.S. history, emphasizing the attorneys general's capability to achieve such a significant outcome.

"We accomplished it with the Tobacco Settlement in the 1990s and with the entities responsible for the opioid crisis. We will do it again with Meta," Coleman stated in a declaration.