California AG says Meta trial focuses on penalties, not massive damages

California Attorney General Rob Bonta told reporters after the first day of opening arguments that the federal case against Meta is aimed at civil penalties, restitution and addressing alleged distortions, not at extracting a massive monetary award.

The trial, held in Oakland’s federal courthouse, involves a bipartisan coalition of 29 state attorneys general who allege that Facebook and Instagram were designed to foster addictive behavior among children and harm their mental health. An advisory jury will hear the case, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will ultimately determine any penalties.

Bonta emphasized that the states are not seeking a $1.4 trillion judgment, describing that figure as the “highest possible number” calculated from data and noted that Meta had estimated it. He said the plaintiffs will request “significant financial gain in the form of total existing civil penalties,” leaving the judge to decide the amount.

State lawyers claim Meta violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and other consumer-protection statutes. They have submitted statistics on youth usage of Facebook and Instagram to support their penalty calculations.

During opening arguments, Deputy Attorney General Megan O'Neill argued that public statements by Meta executives conflicted with internal research on child mental wellbeing, accusing the company of misleading users, legislators, teachers and parents. Meta’s counsel, Paul Schmidt, contested those claims and asked the advisory jury to consider whether the evidence proves the allegations.

The states are also seeking the deletion of personal data for users under 13, removal of algorithms trained on that data, and the elimination of design features such as infinite scroll and autoplay. Bonta noted that Meta is the first major platform targeted, with pending lawsuits against TikTok, YouTube and Snap, and called for industry-wide reforms to protect children.