Opening arguments began Tuesday in Oakland federal court in a landmark trial that could cost Meta as much as $1.4 trillion, with California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey arguing the company deliberately engineered Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children, concealed the resulting harm, and illegally harvested data from users under 13.

The case, playing out before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, centers on internal design choices — infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendation engines, notification systems — that plaintiffs say were built and tuned specifically to maximize time spent on the apps by young users, regardless of the psychological cost.

"Hook, Hold, Harvest, Hide"

California Deputy Attorney General Megan O'Neill laid out the states' theory bluntly in her opening statement, saying, according to NPR: "Meta's business model can be summed up in four simple words: 'hook' the users, 'hold' them for as long as they can, 'harvest' their data, and then 'hide' the truth."

"HOOK. HOLD. HARVEST. HIDE."

The $1.4 trillion figure reflects Meta's own framing of the states' maximum potential exposure under the claims; plaintiffs' attorneys have separately floated $200 billion as a more realistic damages estimate if they prevail, according to CNBC. Either figure would dwarf any previous verdict against a tech company over child-safety claims.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are both expected to testify over what court watchers project will be a four-to-seven-week trial. Meta has pushed back hard on the states' framing, arguing in filings and public statements that "social media addiction" is not a recognized medical diagnosis, and leaning on Section 230 and First Amendment defenses that have shielded platforms from similar claims in the past. NBC News reports the company plans to argue that parents, not platform design, bear primary responsibility for kids' screen time.

The trial follows a March 2026 verdict in New Mexico, where a jury awarded $942 million in a related child-safety case against Meta — a result plaintiffs' attorneys in Oakland are expected to cite as precedent for holding the company liable at scale. Unlike that case, however, the Oakland trial involves four state attorneys general directly, rather than private plaintiffs, raising the stakes and the potential for regulatory fallout beyond monetary damages.

Meta's stock showed little immediate reaction to the trial's opening, with investors seemingly pricing in a lengthy legal process and eventual settlement rather than a full judgment. Legal analysts caution that trials of this scale often end in negotiated settlements before reaching a verdict, but the states involved have signaled they are prepared to see the case through if Meta doesn't offer significant concessions on platform design for minors.