Meta is back in court over child safety, this time in a federal civil trial in Oakland, California, that could test how far states can go in challenging the design and data practices of major social platforms. Wired reports that the case is being heard in the US District Court for the Northern District of California before Chief District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The plaintiffs are 29 state attorneys general. According to Wired, they allege that Meta violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, by improperly collecting personal information from children under 13 without parental consent. The case focuses on two Meta apps: Facebook and Instagram. The lead attorneys general are from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, Wired reports. In addition to the privacy-law claims, they allege Meta made deceptive statements about its platforms that were likely to mislead consumers. Meta denies the core allegations. Wired reports that the company says it satisfied COPPA requirements in the relevant states, denies that its statements about how its apps work were deceptive or misleading, and argues that it is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law that shields platforms from liability for user-posted content. The trial lands amid a widening legal campaign against social-media companies over youth harms. Bloomberg Technology describes the broader landscape as a flood of lawsuits alleging that social platforms were engineered to be hard to resist and caused serious harm to young users. Bloomberg also reports that in the first personal-injury case to go to trial, a Los Angeles jury in March found Meta Platforms and Google liable. Wired similarly says Meta, along with YouTube, lost a landmark California case in the spring in which a jury found the companies liable for harming a young user with certain app design features. Wired also points to another recent loss for Meta: earlier this month, the company was ordered to pay more than $940 million in New Mexico for being a public nuisance and causing psychological harm to children. That figure is single-sourced in the provided material, but it underscores why this trial matters for the broader liability picture. Inside the Oakland courtroom, the states’ case is aimed at the mechanics of engagement. Wired reports that California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill told jurors the states would show how multiple features worked separately and together to draw users into Meta’s apps and keep them there longer, including children. Meta’s opening response, according to Wired, emphasized safety work rather than conceding the plaintiffs’ theory. Lead attorney Paul Schmidt pointed to safety features Meta has added over several years and said the company is committed to improving its apps. He also argued that some children find their way onto the apps and that some teens struggle to manage their time, while harmful content can be posted by users. The trial has also brought testimony from Arturo Bejar, a former Meta employee and witness in earlier proceedings. Wired reports that Bejar told the courtroom his main point was that Mark Zuckerberg did not prioritize youth safety during Bejar’s time at the company. That testimony, Meta’s Section 230 defense, and the states’ COPPA theory are likely to define how much of this case turns on platform design, data collection, and corporate knowledge rather than only on user-generated content. Who benefits: State attorneys general and child-safety advocates benefit if courts accept that platform design and data collection can create liability. Plaintiffs in related social-media cases may also gain leverage if the trial produces findings that echo prior verdicts. Who's exposed: Meta is directly exposed through Facebook and Instagram. Other social platforms are exposed to the extent courts and juries apply similar reasoning to engagement features, youth safety claims, or children’s data practices.