Inside The Tennessee Trial Challenging Meta's Teen Safety Claims

A Tennessee court has begun hearing one of the most closely watched consumer protection cases against a social media company, with the state alleging that Meta Platforms misled parents about the safety of Instagram and Facebook while downplaying internal research on the platforms' effects on teenagers.

The case, State of Tennessee v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., centres on whether Meta's public claims about child safety matched what its own research suggested about the impact of certain platform features on young users. Filed under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, the lawsuit accuses the company of portraying its platforms as safe for children while continuing to deploy engagement-driven features designed to maximise user activity.

Meta has denied the allegations, arguing that prosecutors have selectively interpreted its research and overlooked the safety measures introduced across Instagram and Facebook in recent years.

The trial follows a pre-trial conference before Chancellor Russell Perkins on July 9 and comes amid growing efforts across the United States and elsewhere to examine how technology companies are held responsible for the impact of their products on children.

Why Tennessee Sued

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti filed the lawsuit in October 2023, alleging that Meta violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act by making misleading claims about platform safety while failing to disclose information about potential risks linked to certain design features.

According to the complaint, Meta repeatedly assured parents and users that it prioritised children's wellbeing while continuing to use tools designed to encourage prolonged engagement. Tennessee argues that these representations created an incomplete picture of the risks associated with Instagram and Facebook.

The lawsuit does not seek to establish that social media itself causes mental health disorders. Instead, it focuses on whether Meta misrepresented what it knew about the potential effects of specific product features on children and teenagers while continuing to market its platforms as safe.

The state is seeking civil penalties, injunctive relief and court-ordered changes to Meta's business practices in Tennessee.

The Research At The Centre

A major part of Tennessee's case relies on Meta's own internal research, much of which became public in 2021 after former employee Frances Haugen disclosed thousands of company documents to US regulators and Congress.

According to Reuters, prosecutors told the court that internal studies indicated Instagram could worsen body image concerns, anxiety and depressive symptoms for some teenage users, particularly adolescent girls. Tennessee argues that Meta continued expanding engagement-focused products despite those findings while publicly emphasising its commitment to youth safety.

The documents disclosed by Haugen included internal presentations examining teenage experiences on Instagram, including concerns around body image, social comparison and prolonged use.

Tennessee argues these records show that Meta was aware of potential risks but did not adequately address them.

Meta disputes that interpretation. The company says prosecutors have selectively quoted internal research that was intended to understand how users interact with its products, not establish that Instagram causes mental health disorders.

It argues the studies demonstrate ongoing product evaluation and efforts to improve safety rather than evidence that it knowingly exposed children to harm.

Features Under Scrutiny

The lawsuit does not argue that Instagram itself is unlawful. Instead, it challenges specific product features that Tennessee says were designed to maximise engagement among users, including teenagers.

Court filings identify recommendation algorithms, infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, push notifications and visible "like" counts as features that encourage repeated use by reducing natural stopping points and rewarding continued interaction.

The complaint also focuses on recommendation systems that surface content based on previous user activity. Tennessee argues these systems can reinforce particular behaviours or interests and contribute to prolonged exposure to content that may negatively affect some young users.

The state alleges that Meta had the technical ability to introduce stronger safeguards but failed to do so while continuing to market its platforms as suitable for younger audiences.

Meta's Defence

Meta has consistently denied the allegations.

According to Reuters, the company told the court that it has spent years developing tools designed to protect younger users. These include private accounts by default for teenagers, parental supervision features, restrictions on direct messages from unknown adults, content controls and additional safety measures across Instagram and Facebook.

Meta argues that scientific evidence on social media and adolescent mental health remains inconclusive. The company says no single body of research has established a direct causal relationship between social media use and mental health disorders, and argues that Tennessee has drawn conclusions beyond what the available evidence supports.

The company also maintains that its internal research should be viewed as evidence of responsible product testing rather than proof that it ignored known risks.

Meta has argued that protecting children online requires consistent industry-wide rules created through legislation rather than different standards emerging through individual lawsuits.

A Wider Regulatory Push

Tennessee's lawsuit forms part of a broader effort by governments and regulators to increase scrutiny of technology companies and their responsibilities towards children.

The case was filed in October 2023, when more than 40 US state attorneys general also launched separate lawsuits alleging that Meta knowingly designed addictive features for children while overstating the effectiveness of its safety measures.

At the federal level, lawmakers continue debating the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which would require online platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harms to minors, strengthen parental controls and increase transparency around recommendation systems.

Regulators have also focused on children's digital privacy. In February 2026, the US Federal Trade Commission issued a policy statement encouraging wider use of age verification technologies as part of enforcement of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

The debate has also moved beyond the United States. The United Kingdom's Online Safety Act places new duties on technology companies to address illegal and harmful content, while the European Union's Digital Services Act requires very large online platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks, including those affecting children. Australia has similarly expanded the powers of its eSafety Commissioner to address online harms involving minors.

These developments reflect a wider shift towards regulating digital platforms through child safety, privacy and consumer protection laws rather than relying solely on voluntary industry commitments.

Why The Trial Matters

Although the case is being heard under Tennessee's consumer protection law, its significance extends beyond the state.

The court is examining a narrower legal question: whether a technology company can be held liable if its public statements about product safety differ from what internal research indicated about potential risks.

The outcome could influence how courts interpret consumer protection laws in future cases involving digital platforms. A ruling in Tennessee would not automatically determine the result of similar lawsuits, but it could provide guidance for other states pursuing comparable claims.

The proceedings are also being watched in Washington. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has sought information from Meta regarding whistleblower allegations involving child safety research and company disclosures.

The case may also shape wider debates about corporate transparency in the technology sector, particularly over whether internal research can be used to establish legal responsibility when companies identify potential risks associated with their products.

What Happens Next?

The trial is expected to continue with documentary evidence, expert testimony and witness examinations before Chancellor Russell Perkins delivers a ruling.

If the court finds that Meta violated Tennessee's consumer protection law, it could impose civil penalties and order changes to the company's practices within the state. Any ruling is likely to face appeal.

Regardless of the outcome, the Tennessee case represents a significant test of how existing consumer protection laws apply to social media platforms. As governments continue developing new rules for digital services, the proceedings will help shape how courts assess the relationship between internal corporate research, public disclosures and responsibility towards young users.