Meta wins child safety trial?: Will the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rule rules in favor of Meta Platforms, Inc. on the plaintiff States' claims that it designed Facebook and Instagram to cause compulsive use by minors and that it misrepresented the safety of those platforms? Before Jul 1, 2027

If the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rules in favor of Meta Platforms, Inc. on the plaintiff States' claims that it designed Facebook and Instagram to cause compulsive use by minors and that it misrepresented the safety of those platforms in the state attorney general actions in In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, No. 4:22-md-03047 before Jul 1, 2027, then the market resolves to Yes. This market turns on liability on two theories, not on money. It resolves YES only if the court rules for Meta on both the claim that it designed Facebook and Instagram to cause compulsive use by minors and the claim that it misrepresented the safety of those platforms. A ruling for the plaintiff States on either one resolves it to NO. The ruling must be issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in these actions, must address the matter described by the specified judgment, and must be issued through a written order, opinion, judgment or decision. The advisory jury's verdict is not a ruling of the court, so only the court's own written findings of fact, conclusions of law, order or judgment count. Outside this market: The plaintiff States' claims under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which are also being tried, and any claim or part of a claim resting on the COPPA violations the court found in June 2026, including an unfair competition claim predicated on them. A ruling for the States on any of those does not by itself resolve this market NO. Monetary relief and its amount. The court may rule for Meta here and still order Meta to pay on the COPPA claims; what Meta is ordered to pay is measured by the separate market on that question. Injunctive relief, however broad. The personal injury, school district and other actions in this multidistrict litigation. The following do NOT satisfy the Payout Criterion: A settlement of any size, or a voluntary dismissal, whether or not its terms are disclosed A ruling for Meta on one of the two claims but not the other Oral rulings from the bench unless reduced to a written order Tentative rulings that are not made final Administrative or scheduling orders, orders to show cause, and minute orders that do not address the substantive issue For clarity: sua sponte rulings count if they match the specified judgment, and per curiam opinions and summary orders count as rulings. Only the district court's ruling counts, and a later reversal on appeal does not reverse a settled outcome.