Meta says four US states are seeking about $1.4 trillion in penalties in a youth safety lawsuit tied to Facebook and Instagram. The company disclosed the figure in a court filing on Monday ahead of an August trial in Oakland, California.
The case focuses on California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey. The states accuse Meta of designing its platforms to keep young users engaged and of misleading the public about safety. Meta has denied the claims and questioned the penalty demand.
Meta said the proposed penalty figure came from filings by the attorneys general on how penalties should be calculated if the states win at trial. The company said the amount is close to its market value and argued that the states have not backed it with evidence.
The company wrote in its filing, “A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement.” Meta also said the figure has no proper legal basis under the facts of the case.
The states’ filings are sealed, but they explained part of their method at a June court hearing. They said they used the number of claimed violations and multiplied that by fine amounts allowed under state consumer laws.
The states based the number of violations on estimates of teens and young users allegedly affected by Meta’s conduct. Representatives for the attorneys general did not immediately comment after Meta disclosed the figure.
The August trial will take place before US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. It will cover claims under the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, known as COPPA, along with consumer protection claims from the four states.
Twenty-nine states have sued Meta in federal court. Many of them claim the company collected data from children without proper parental consent. The four states also say Meta misled the public about whether Facebook and Instagram were safe for young users.
Meta rejects that position. The company says the attorneys general have not shown that it misled users about platform addiction. It also argues that ‘social media addiction’ is not an established psychiatric condition, so its statements about addiction cannot be false.
Judge Rogers recently rejected Meta’s request to cancel the trial. The judge said factual disputes still need review, including whether the platforms were addictive, whether Meta denied designing them that way, and whether the company partly directed the platforms at children.
Meanwhile, Meta is facing another regulatory issue in India over a new WhatsApp usernames feature. The feature would allow users to chat without sharing phone numbers. India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has asked Meta to pause the rollout and explain its safety controls.
Officials have raised concerns that usernames could be used for spoofing or fraud. They fear scammers may copy names linked to real people, government offices or trusted organisations. Meta has until July 9 to send a detailed response.
WhatsApp has defended the feature. It says usernames will be optional and that users will not be searchable only through a username. The company also says users will see safety information before replying to unknown accounts, including the sender’s country and whether the account is new.
Also Read: ChatGPT Lawsuit Claims OpenAI Secretly Shared Private User Chats with Meta and Google