Meta's under-13 data practices go to a jury: 29 AGs, COPPA, and a porous age gate

Twenty-nine state attorneys general are in federal court in Oakland arguing that Meta violated COPPA by collecting personal information from children under 13 on Facebook and Instagram without parental consent, and that it made deceptive statements about how its platforms work ^[1][2][3]. Meta arrives at this trial having already lost twice this year: a California jury found it and YouTube liable in the spring for harming a young user through certain design features, and earlier this month it was ordered to pay more than $940 million in New Mexico as a public nuisance causing psychological harm to children ^[4][5][1].

The lead attorneys general span California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, and the case is before chief district judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ^[6][7]. According to Wired, whose reporters sat in the courtroom for opening arguments, California deputy attorney general Megan O'Neill told the jury it would see "how many features work both individually and together to keep people in the apps," and that Meta used those features to draw kids on and keep them coming back ^[8][14]. Meta lead attorney Paul Schmidt answered with the dozens of safety features built into the apps over the past several years, and with an allocation of responsibility to users: there is no dispute that some kids find their way onto the apps, some teens "struggle to manage their time," and some people post negative content ^[9][10].

That second half of the defense is the part product teams should read twice. A COPPA count about under-13 accounts turns on who the product knew was using it and what it collected by default; conceding that children find their way in is a statement about how well the age gate holds ^[3][10]. The deceptive-practices count attaches to statements about how the apps work, which puts onboarding copy, help-center language and marketing claims into evidence next to the code ^[2].

Meta maintains it satisfied COPPA in those states, denies that its statements were misleading, and asserts that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields it ^[11]. On the reading Wired reports, that statute concerns responsibility for content users post, which is a different object from a platform's own collection of data about a minor ^[11]. Design process is also on the stand: Arturo Bejar, a former Meta employee and a witness in earlier trials, testified that Mark Zuckerberg did not prioritize youth safety, that a growth idea meant "you could just test it," and that it was "near impossible" to screen products and features for potential harms ^[12][13]. Whatever the jury makes of it, the exhibit is the review gate, or its absence.

The commercial context matters as much as the legal one. Snap, TikTok and YouTube have all chosen this year to settle some suits alleging their platforms harmed children, which leaves Meta as the one testing the argument in front of a jury after two adverse outcomes ^[15][1]. For any consumer product with minors on it, the practical translation is that age assurance and collection defaults now carry a discovery cost and a damages tail, not just a policy memo.

Watch three things. Whether the jury splits the COPPA count from the deceptive-practices count, since the first is about data and the second is about what the company said ^[2][3]. Whether the Section 230 argument holds any weight when the alleged harm is collection rather than posted content ^[11]. And whether Meta, like its peers, decides mid-trial that settling is cheaper than a verdict ^[15].