Timeline: State AGs v. Meta

Timeline of Key Dates

Primary Case: People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-05448-YGR (N.D. Cal.). Docket: CourtListener.

Related MDL: In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, No. 4:22-md-03047-YGR (N.D. Cal.). Docket: CourtListener.

Presiding Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; Magistrate Judge Hon. Peter H. Kang.1

This is the companion timeline to Meta's Social-Media-Addiction Settlement, which covers the settlement terms, financial structure, and New Mexico's parallel judgment in full narrative form.

Date Event Pleading / Source
2021 State AGs launch multi-state investigation into social media platforms' design and impact on children Variety
Oct 24, 2023 29 state AGs file consolidated complaint in N.D. California (4:23-cv-05448) — see full plaintiff list below; New Mexico files its own separate complaint in state court the same period Complaint — Docket #1; NM Complaint, D-101-CV-2023-02838, filed Dec. 5, 2023 per NM judgment findings of fact ¶1
Nov 22, 2023 Meta files Motion to Dismiss the Multistate AGs' Complaint MTD — Docket #83
Oct 15, 2024 Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rules on Meta's MTD (Docket #123); COPPA, consumer-protection, and misrepresentation claims proceed. Ruling apparently cut both ways — both Meta and Colorado separately noticed appeals/cross-appeals from this order in Nov. 2024 (Docket #143–146), which isn't reflected in most secondary coverage.2 Order (secondary; primary order at Docket #123 not yet independently pulled)
Mar 1, 2024 Meta moves to dismiss NM's separate case for lack of personal jurisdiction NM Judgment, Findings of Fact ¶7
Jun 21, 2024 NM court denies Meta's jurisdictional MTD NM Judgment, Findings of Fact ¶7
Feb 2 – Mar 24, 2026 NM Phase 1 jury trial (Unfair Practices Act claims and civil penalties) NM Judgment at 1
Mar 24, 2026 New Mexico jury finds Meta liable for 75,000 UPA violations; jury imposes the maximum $5,000/violation penalty AP; confirmed by NM Judgment, Findings of Fact ¶12
Mar 26, 2026 NM court enters "Order Correcting Verdict Form," formalizing the $375,000,000 civil-penalty total NM Judgment, Findings of Fact ¶12
Mar 25, 2026 California jury (K.G.M. v. Meta, L.A. Superior Court) finds Meta 70% / Google 30% liable; awards $6M in damages (bellwether) Wikipedia (secondary only — not independently verified)
May 4–22, 2026 NM Phase 2 bench trial (public-nuisance / abatement claims) NM Judgment at 1
Jun 2026 Court denies Meta's summary judgment motion on COPPA notice/consent claims; states win partial SJ.3 Yahoo News
Aug 6, 2026, 4:41 PM New Mexico final judgment entered by Judge Bryan Biedscheid: $942M total ($375M Phase 1 penalty + $567M Phase 2 abatement), public-nuisance finding, Meta's Section 230 defense rejected, 5-year injunctive relief. Court explicitly declined to mandate hard age-verification, calling that a legislative question. Judgment court-file stamp, p. 1; NM DOJ press release
Aug 18, 2026 Federal jury trial begins in Oakland (Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building) CNN; confirmed by Docket #550
Aug 20, 2026 Scheduled trial day vacated and continued to Aug. 24 (Clerk's Notice) Docket #559
Aug 24–25, 2026 Trial continues; Adam Mosseri (Head of Instagram) testifies, per secondary reporting, on Aug. 25 — a date the docket confirms as a trial day (generic minute entry, doesn't name witnesses) NBC News; Docket #571, #573
Aug 26, 2026 Jury trial "completed" (49 minutes in court — notably short) → "Trial Order No. 3" re timing of juror discharge & privilege dispute → Joint Motion to Enter Consent Judgment filed → Consent Judgment entered by Judge Gonzalez Rogers, granting both the case-specific motion (#572) and the parallel MDL motion (#3447) → case terminated, all same day. A Jury Note was logged the next day (Aug. 27).4 Docket #574, #575, #572, #576, #578
Aug 26, 2026 Settlement approved. Up to $17.1–18B over 10 years plus 10-year phased product-reform terms, plus a separate ~$459.3M sub-settlement of older Cambridge Analytica-era claims. 29 states litigated this case; the Settlement Agreement's broader eligible-jurisdiction list runs to ~51 states/territories (all but Florida and New Mexico) once 13 parallel "Satellite AG Actions" are folded in — reconciling the "29 states sued" vs. "52 AGs settled" figures reported in the press. Consent Judgment — Docket #572, Exhibit 1; NYT; CBS

Full List of the 29 Litigating Plaintiff States

Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin.5

Notes

  • The state AG case (4:23-cv-05448) and the MDL (4:22-md-03047) are related but distinct. The MDL consolidates individual plaintiffs, school districts, and the state AGs' personal-injury claims; the state AG case handles the regulatory/enforcement claims (COPPA, consumer protection, unfair competition).
  • Florida (AG James Uthmeier) and New Mexico (AG Raúl Torrez) do not appear anywhere in the Settlement Agreement's defined universe of eligible "Settling States" — a structural exclusion, not merely a decision by either state not to sign. New Mexico's reason is documented (it already had a stronger, separate judgment, including a Section 230 ruling Meta avoided nationally); Florida's is not documented in any source reviewed for this page.
  • The settlement is the first in which Meta has been required to change core product features (time caps, nighttime blackout, muted notifications, age assurance) for all users nationwide — though those terms are phased (an immediate "Phase I" and a stricter, contingent "Phase II"), which most press coverage collapses into a single figure. See Meta's Social-Media-Addiction Settlement for the full phased breakdown.
  • New Mexico's Jan. 21, 2021 Cambridge Analytica–era complaint is one of four pre-existing cases folded into a separate ~$459.3M sub-settlement bundled into the same Aug. 26 Settlement Agreement — meaning New Mexico is a partial beneficiary of this document even though it isn't a "Settling State" for the addiction claims themselves.

Suggestions for Future Research

  1. Pull Docket #123 (the actual Oct. 15, 2024 MTD order) and #143–146 (the cross-appeals) to characterize that ruling accurately instead of relying on the secondary Findlaw summary.
  2. Pull Docket #575 and #578 to confirm or rule out the "settled while jury was deliberating" inference.
  3. Pull Docket #576 (the court's actually-entered Consent Judgment) to confirm it's identical to the parties' proposed version at #572-1.
  4. Check the MDL docket (4:22-md-03047-YGR, motion #3447) for the full Satellite AG Action list and any personal-injury/school-district claims not covered here.
  5. Find a primary source for Florida's non-participation.
  6. Verify the K.G.M. v. Meta California bellwether verdict (Mar. 25, 2026) against a primary source; currently sourced only to Wikipedia.

See Also

For the settlement terms, financial structure, and New Mexico's parallel judgment in full narrative form, see Meta's Social-Media-Addiction Settlement.

Sourcing Notes

  1. Both cases share the same district judge — confirmed directly from the Joint Motion's caption (Docket #572 at 1) rather than from secondary reporting. ↩

  2. Prior drafts characterized the Oct. 2024 order as simply "largely denying" Meta's motion, sourced only to a secondary Findlaw link. The federal docket shows a materially different, more complicated picture: Meta and the plaintiff State of Colorado both separately noticed appeals from the same order (Docket #143, #146), which suggests parts of the ruling went against each side. The actual order (Docket #123) hasn't been pulled for this page — see Suggestions for Future Research. ↩

  3. The California AG press release previously cited for this entry is actually about an unrelated Aug. 10, 2026 Ninth Circuit appeal-dismissal announcement; it only references the June SJ order in passing. It is not a reliable primary citation for the June ruling itself — the actual SJ order should be pulled from the docket directly. ↩

  4. This sequencing is suggestive — not confirmed — that the case settled while the jury was still deliberating or mid-note to the court, rather than well before a verdict. Confirming this requires reading Docket #575 and #578 directly, which wasn't done for this page. ↩

  5. Counted directly from the Joint Motion's signature blocks (Docket #572 at 2, 6–13) — not from any news report. Georgia was an original co-plaintiff but filed a stipulation of dismissal Nov. 22, 2024 (Docket #144) and does not appear in the final 29. ↩