Meta (META) is facing off against attorneys general from four states in a lawsuit alleging that the social media company purposely developed its apps to hook children and young users and lied about the harm the platforms can cause.

Meta denies the allegations, saying it works to protect young users on its platforms via a number of features and options.

If the company loses the trial, taking place before District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland, the states could force Meta to dramatically rethink its apps by removing major features including infinite scroll and disappearing posts.

But even if Meta prevails, it still may end up making changes to its services to avoid the thousands of other suits lined up behind this one.

“This is a moment that Meta has not wanted to face for quite some time,” said Tulane University Freeman School of Business professor Rob Lalka.

“This is a moment that will change the course of this company one way or the other.”

Meta versus the states

In the suit, which is a test case for broader litigation involving 25 additional states, the attorneys general from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey argue that Meta violated consumer protection laws by misleading users about the safety of its apps and violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by harvesting data from children under 13 on its services without their parents’ permission.

The California lawsuit is just the latest in a string of suits Meta faces regarding its impact on teens and young users. The company has already lost two cases, one in Los Angeles and another in New Mexico, both of which it says it will appeal.

The cases are all unique but generally focus on how Meta designs its products rather than on the content they host. That’s an important distinction, because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Meta and other internet-based platforms for what their users post.

“For me, the bigger significance of this case is whether courts become comfortable treating choices about how a social media product is designed as something companies can be held responsible for, rather than treating the dispute primarily as one about harmful content posted by users,” Penn State Dickinson Law professor Daryl Lim told Yahoo Finance via email.

“If that theory continues to succeed, it changes the litigation risk not only for Meta but for the social media industry more broadly.”

Meta says the states’ case is a $1.4 trillion money grab, a figure the company says the attorneys general sought to have the company pay in the event it loses.

“The State AGs may call this a landmark case, but their limited claims are unsubstantiated, and their financial demands are vastly disproportionate,” a Meta spokesperson said ahead of opening arguments Tuesday.

“The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification. Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout. We stand by our record of creating strong protections for teens, and look forward to making our case in court.”

Lalka, however, says those changes aren’t enough.

“Meta is going to, of course, try and make the case that they’ve taken steps to protect children,” he said. “But the very changes that these attorneys general are requesting are ones that they’ve not made of their own volition up until this point.”

If Judge Rogers rules against Meta, forcing the company to change its product design, Syracuse University communications professor Alexis Shore Ingber says the company could still thrive.

“Can we have effective design that doesn’t take away from Meta’s business model? The answer is yes,” Ingber told Yahoo Finance.

“Across the board, there are ways in which Meta can still profit while also committing to not deceiving their consumers into unsafe practices. I think that they need to invest in figuring out how to protect consumers in the process of making money,” she added.