Why 29 state attorneys general pushed for a single Meta trial — and what the judge's hybrid ruling means

By Diana Novak Jones

Aug 18 (Reuters) - Opening statements are underway in the federal case accusing Meta Platforms of deceiving the public about the risks its social networks pose to young users, but the first major battle in the case has already been settled: how the trial itself would be structured.

A bipartisan coalition of 29 attorneys general wanted one trial. Meta wanted many. If the states had gotten their way, a single jury would have heard all of their consumer-protection and federal child-privacy claims in one sweeping case. Meta argued for a series of smaller trials that would group states with similar laws, saying that was the only fair way to handle claims arising under different legal standards.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers split the difference. She will allow Colorado, California, Kentucky and New Jersey to pursue their state consumer-protection claims together in the same proceeding, while the full coalition's claims under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act will also be part of the trial. The judge will make the final decision, but she has empaneled an advisory jury whose findings may inform her ruling.

The fight over trial structure was about more than logistics. The states argued that their case turns on company-wide decisions that affected millions of young people across the country, and that jurors should hear a single, coherent story about Meta's conduct. Meta countered that merging the claims would blur important differences among state laws and make it harder to evaluate each one fairly.

For the states, standing together was always a strategic choice. Legal experts say a multistate coalition can pool resources and expertise in a case against a company as well-capitalized as Meta, and it can strengthen the moral weight of the claims in front of a judge and jury. State attorneys general used the same playbook against the tobacco industry and the opioid crisis, often winning major settlements or court-ordered changes.

"A jury will see all these states banding together to do this, and that presents kind of like a projection of unity," said Prentiss Cox, a former Minnesota assistant state attorney general who is now a law professor at the University of Minnesota. "Elected officials on different sides of a partisan world can agree that this is a problem that needs solving."

The case grew out of a multistate investigation into Instagram and Facebook's impact on young users. In a lawsuit filed in 2023, the states accused Meta of knowingly designing features in the apps to hook young users while telling the public the platforms were safe, conduct they say violated state consumer-protection laws. A large portion of the coalition also claims Meta failed to get parental consent before collecting personal information from children, in violation of the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

Meta has denied the allegations and says it has invested heavily in tools to protect teen users. "The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled," a company spokesperson said. "Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout."

Meta's push for state-by-state trials reflected its plan to defend with state-specific evidence. The company argued that each state's consumer-protection law has its own standards, and that combining them could confuse jurors.

The stakes reach well beyond the four states whose state-law claims are at the center of this first trial. The outcome could help determine how the remaining states' claims are resolved, force Meta to change how Facebook and Instagram operate, and expose the company to billions of dollars in penalties.

Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman described the case as the largest consumer-protection lawsuit in American history. "AGs are in the perfect position to get this done," Coleman said in a statement. "We did it with the Tobacco Settlement in the 1990s. We did it with the companies behind the opioid crisis. We'll do it again with Meta."

The trial is also being watched by other tech companies, state regulators and children's advocates. A ruling against Meta could embolden more AGs to bring similar cases against social media platforms; a Meta win could slow that momentum. Either way, the case is likely to shape how states pursue online-safety claims for years.

Reporting by Diana Novak Jones; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Nia Williams