Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has put the state behind a 29-state federal case that opened in Oakland this week, testing whether Meta unlawfully designed Facebook and Instagram to keep children online while giving parents an incomplete picture of the risks.
Idaho joined the lawsuit in October 2023 after a multiyear investigation. Lawyers from California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are leading the courtroom presentation, while Idaho and the rest of the coalition support the case. Meta has denied the allegations, and the company has not been found liable in this proceeding.
The case targets product design, not user posts
The states are not chiefly asking Meta to answer for what individual users publish. Their case focuses on how the company built and marketed its products. The complaint alleges that Meta used features intended to increase the time young users spend on Facebook and Instagram, then downplayed what it knew about possible harms.
Infinite scroll, autoplay, beauty filters, engagement-driven recommendations and the like button are among the design choices under scrutiny. The coalition also alleges that Meta collected personal information from children under 13 without parental consent, in violation of the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
That distinction matters. Federal law often shields online platforms from liability for content posted by users. The attorneys general are taking a different route by challenging product design, data practices and public statements. For Idaho parents, the central question is whether a technology company gave families reliable information and respected the consent rules written for young children.
The court already cleared major claims to proceed
The case did not reach trial quickly. A federal judge rejected Meta's effort to dismiss key claims in 2025, allowing allegations involving compulsive design and failure to warn to continue. In June 2026, the court also refused to end the case before trial. Meta then sought a delay from both the district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but neither court stopped the proceedings.
The trial is before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California and is expected to last roughly six to eight weeks. The courtroom team represents four states, but Idaho is among the other coalition members backing the federal action.
Labrador has framed that role around family protection and corporate accountability. He said protecting Idaho children is among the most important responsibilities of his office. The trial gives that promise a measurable test: the states must prove their allegations with evidence, and Meta gets the chance to answer them.
The remedy could change how young users see a feed
The coalition is asking the court to stop practices it says are unlawful, require compliance with child-privacy and consumer-protection laws, and impose monetary penalties where the law allows. Court filings also seek broad changes tied to data gathered from children under 13, including deletion of that data and models trained with it if the states prove a federal violation.
Other requested remedies target design features that the states say encourage extended use. A ruling for the coalition could bring stronger age checks, more parental controls, time-management tools or limits on certain engagement features. Those outcomes are not guaranteed, and any major ruling is likely to face an appeal.
Meta says the claims are unsubstantiated and that the company has built protections for teens, including enhanced privacy settings and an Instagram reminder after an hour of use. Its lawyers argue that the states have taken company research and statements out of context and that the evidence does not show its products are addictive.
Idaho families are the local stake
The national size of the case can obscure the practical Idaho issue. Parents set household rules, schools handle distracted students and children carry the effects of products designed far beyond the state's borders. The lawsuit asks whether those families had truthful information and meaningful control while the platforms competed for young users' attention.
By keeping Idaho in the coalition, Labrador has made that question part of the state's consumer-protection work instead of leaving it solely to individual families or voluntary company policy. The next six to eight weeks will not settle every debate about children and social media, but they will force both sides to put their evidence in public and give a federal court a chance to draw an accountability line.