Meta Faces Another Trial Over Alleged Harms of Social Media

Here are the morning’s top stories on Monday, August 10, 2026

• Jury selection begins Wednesday in Oakland in a federal trial pitting four state attorneys general, including California’s, against Meta. The AGs argue the company deliberately engineered addiction into Facebook and Instagram, aimed them at children, and lied to the public about the risks. 
• Cases of the foodborne cyclospora parasite have risen sharply in California. But officials say the rise is still not linked to the major national outbreak. The parasite has not been detected on produce grown in California. But local farmers here are still feeling the effects of the outbreak. 
• A Shasta County judge has blocked a number of controversial changes to the elections system that voters approved earlier this year.

On Wednesday in Oakland, the federal trial between four state attorneys general, including California AG Rob Bonta, and Meta begins with jury selection. The case is looking at whether the company deliberately engineered addiction into Facebook and Instagram, aimed them at children, and lied to the public about the risks.

“This is a consumer protection case, not a personal injury case or a free speech case,” said KQED Silicon Valley Senior Editor Rachael Myrow. “The attorneys general are asking for civil penalties and for Meta to hand over profits it made from underage users. In pre-trial filings, they’ve calculated those penalties could run as much as $1.4 trillion. That’s roughly what Meta is worth on Wall Street these days. But money isn’t the only ask. The states also want a court order forcing Meta to redesign its platforms to change the features that keep young people scrolling.”

Meta has argued that social media addiction isn’t a real diagnosis. The company also argued that Facebook and Instagram are not aimed at children particularly, although Meta recently developed a teen-specific version of Instagram. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected both of those arguments before trial.

Opening arguments in the case are scheduled for August 18.

Amid the national outbreaks of cyclospora — a foodborne parasite that causes explosive diarrhea, which has sickened tens of thousands of people nationally and led to two reported deaths — California health officials have reassured residents: The state remains one of the few unaffected by the outbreak.

But even as the California Department of Public Health confirmed that none of the iceberg lettuce being investigated as a source of the outbreak was distributed in the state, cases of cyclosporiasis in California have nonetheless jumped up in the last few months. After reporting only 41 cyclosporiasis cases from January to June this year, CDPH’s most recent data shows that the 2026 number has now risen to 215 “confirmed and probable” cases as of July 15, including 13 hospitalizations.

For context, based on their 2015-2025 figures, CDPH’s annual average for cyclosporiasis cases is 106.

“Most cases” of cyclospora in California tend to be linked to residents traveling to international destinations with cyclosporiasis outbreaks, CDPH said. But the agency also suspects that this year there have been “increased cases in travelers to areas with cyclosporiasis outbreaks, whether international or domestic.”

The outbreak is also impacting produce growers in California. The Central Coast and nearby valleys produce most of the United States’ leafy greens. But right now, Tony Alameda, an owner of Top Flavor Farms in San Juan Bautista, said people aren’t buying. “”It’s a shame because it has nothing to do with anything we’ve done in the region, and yet you’re just impacted,” Alameda said.

He said some growers aren’t harvesting 30% to 40% of their crop because of the reduced demand.

A Shasta County judge has blocked a number of controversial changes to the elections system that voters approved earlier this year. Judge Benjamin Hanna granted a preliminary injunction Friday morning to stop Shasta County’s Measure B from moving forward.

The measure would make a number of changes Hanna said were in direct violation of state law, like hand-counting ballots and severely restricting mail-in voting.

The California Attorney General sued the county shortly after the measure passed. The county board of supervisors voted to not defend the measure in court, so instead the proponents who got the measure on the ballot took the county’s place.

In his ruling, Judge Hanna said that while charter counties have additional powers, those can’t extend beyond the state constitution. He added that the California Supreme Court has said that the integrity of elections is a matter of statewide concern, and should be addressed by the legislature, not individual counties.

He found that the four main provisions of the measure directly contradict state law. That includes voter ID requirements, restricting mail-in voting, hand-counting ballots and creating a new voter roll independent of the state.