A federal judge has ruled that California can present a crucial witness and introduce key evidence in its lawsuit against Meta, a decision that constitutes a significant setback for the technology giant on the eve of a landmark trial. The ruling by Chief Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California resolves two critical pretrial disputes, granting procedural victories to a coalition of state attorneys general.
The states, which are suing Meta over allegations that its products are designed to addict children and that the company has misled the public about their safety, will be permitted to call whistleblower Arturo Béjar to testify. This decision stands despite Meta's contention that Béjar had auto-deleted Signal chats with other insiders, thereby defying retention orders. Judge Gonzalez Rogers characterized Meta's motion to exclude Béjar as a "Hail Mary" attempt to eliminate a strong witness for the plaintiffs, stating, "Ultimately, it is obvious that this motion falls into the category of a ‘Hail Mary’ attempt to eliminate a strong witness for the plaintiffs. The attempt fails."
Furthermore, the judge ruled that the team of attorneys general can present select evidence to jurors during opening statements on Tuesday. This evidence will support the states' claims, even before it is formally entered into the record through witness testimony weeks later. This dual ruling represents the latest legal challenge for Meta, which has vigorously contested the blockbuster suit reaching a jury and has aggressively sought to limit the evidence admissible at trial.
Meta's legal team had argued that many of the documents presented by the states raised significant admissibility disputes, including issues of hearsay, contested business records, scope-of-employment challenges, Section 230 concerns, prejudice, and foundational objections. The current federal suit is the first of thousands of federal actions against Meta to proceed to trial. This development follows Meta's recent losses in two significant civil suits in state courts, where juries in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Los Angeles found its products harmful to children.
The federal lawsuit seeks substantial damages and injunctive relief that could fundamentally alter Meta's business practices. Meta stated in a recent press release that the states' claims are unsubstantiated and their financial demands disproportionate, accusing them of pursuing an "outlandish payout" rather than adhering to facts or law. The company has argued that the states are seeking over $1 trillion in damages, a figure approaching its total market capitalization, although more recent reports suggest a lower valuation for the requested damages.
This trial is set to commence shortly after a judge in New Mexico upheld a jury's decision in favor of the state's attorney general, adding over $500 million to an existing $375 million damage award and mandating product overhauls for young users. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez hailed the decision as a "blueprint," noting that it marks the first time a court has held a social media giant liable for endangering children and has ordered structural changes. Meta has consistently fought to limit both the introduction and presentation of documents in its ongoing litigation, including a recent order to hand over metadata linking internal documents to their creators or handlers, which could facilitate their admissibility.
