Meta faces the largest trial over minors' addiction to Instagram and Facebook: up to 1.4 trillion at stake

With the available information, it is not possible to precisely determine the specific stage of parliamentary processing for United States federal laws on the protection of minors on social networks (such as the Kids Online Safety Act or potential COPPA reforms) as of August 2026. The documentary databases I work with detail Spanish and European regulations on minors in digital environments but do not provide equivalent and updated data on the progress of these projects in the U.S. Congress and Senate. Therefore, I cannot rigorously state whether these initiatives have been approved, are still in committee, or have lapsed in any of the recent federal legislatures. What is clearly observed is that, while in the EU and Spain the number of rules to ban or restrict minors' access to networks is increasing, the specific status of U.S. federal laws does not appear in the sources I handle.

Limitations of sources on the U.S. Congress

My specialization is regulatory and political monitoring in Spain (General Courts, Government, autonomous communities) and, to a lesser extent, in European institutions. The databases I use systematically include:

• Official Spanish documentation on the Organic Law on the protection of minors in digital environments, currently in the committee stage in Congress, with detailed debates on parental control and social network bans, as described, for example, in Demócrata's analysis of the law on the protection of minors on the internet.
• Current Spanish parliamentary information on government amendments to toughen regulation, as covered by the newspaper Demócrata in amendments to penalize algorithmic manipulation and reinforce the ban on minors.
• European context analysis, such as the opinion article on the protection of childhood in digital environments as a democratic obligation, reviewing the role of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and initiatives in France or the United Kingdom.

However, none of these materials contain specific references to the procedural status of the Kids Online Safety Act, a hypothetical “COPPA 2.0,” or other U.S. federal projects on social networks and minors. Project numbers, involved Congressional committees, votes, or presidential vetoes associated with these initiatives are also not mentioned.

What we do know: global regulatory trend

Although I do not have the technical details of the processing in Washington, the sources do allow outlining the international context in which these debates take place. In Europe, the idea of setting a higher “digital majority” (15 or 16 years) and strengthening platform obligations is spreading. The newspaper Demócrata has reported, for example:

• The European Parliament's proposals to restrict access to social networks for minors under 16 across the EU, in line with the philosophy of the DSA.
• The Spanish Government's initiative to raise the minimum age to register on networks without parental consent to 16, within the framework of the Draft Law on the protection of minors in digital environments, described in detail in this analysis of the law's hot points.
• The political will of Pedro Sánchez's Executive to ban the use of networks for minors under 16 and impose robust age verification systems, as detailed in the news piece Sánchez will ban social networks for minors under 16.

These types of debates show an international convergence around the idea that large platforms must assume greater responsibilities regarding safe design, control of harmful content, age verification systems, and usage limits for minors. It is reasonable to assume that the U.S. Congress discusses similar issues when addressing KOSA or COPPA reforms, but again: the sources I handle do not contain details of their processing or specific parliamentary milestones.

Conclusion: why I cannot specify the stage in the U.S.

In summary, as of August 13, 2026:

• There is no clear and verifiable record in the documentary databases I have access to regarding the current status of the Kids Online Safety Act, a potential “COPPA 2.0,” or other equivalent federal projects in the U.S. Congress.
• My specialization is Spanish and European politics and legislation; for the U.S. case, I only have general contextual information, not detailed legislative tracking.
• For rigor, I cannot state whether these initiatives are approved, in committee, blocked, or lapsed.

If you need precise tracking of the processing in Washington, the most reliable approach is to consult the official records of the U.S. Congress (bill tracking portals of the Senate and House of Representatives) or think tanks and legal observatories specialized in U.S. technology law. From the European and Spanish perspective, I can delve in detail into how age verification, network bans, or platform responsibility for minors are being regulated, using as reference the extensive material already published by the newspaper Demócrata on these issues.

Federal judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is a United States district judge in the Northern District of California, with main offices in Oakland/San Francisco. She was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2011. She has full jurisdiction as a federal trial judge in civil and criminal matters and has become especially known for high-impact cases in technology, antitrust, and sports law. Her career combines education at elite universities, experience in a large law firm, and nearly a decade in the California state judiciary before moving to the federal level.

Competencies as a federal judge

As a district judge for the Northern District of California, Gonzalez Rogers exercises the typical jurisdiction of federal trial courts in the U.S., which includes:

• Federal civil matters: disputes based on federal laws (antitrust, intellectual property, securities, civil rights, etc.) and also cases of “diversity jurisdiction” between parties from different states with high monetary amounts.
• Federal criminal proceedings: offenses defined by federal law (fraud, organized crime, financial crimes, corruption, certain cybercrimes, among others), including supervision of prosecution, admission of evidence, jury trials, and sentencing within federal guidelines.
• Constitutional review: direct application of the U.S. Constitution, allowing her to invalidate laws or administrative acts contrary to federal fundamental rights.
• Preliminary injunctions and structural remedies: decisions on restraining orders, seizures, preliminary and permanent injunctions, as well as complex remedies in class actions and antitrust litigation.

Within these general competencies, she stands out for her role in:

• Technology and platform litigation: the Northern District of California is the key forum for Silicon Valley, and significant cases involving major tech companies against developers, users, or competitors have come before her.
• Antitrust law: she has presided over complex proceedings with advanced economic analysis, including market practices of large corporations and the structure of digital platforms.
• University sports law: her court has heard lawsuits against the NCAA related to compensation and benefits for college athletes, impacting the economic model of college sports in the U.S.

Her style is usually described as technically demanding and very active during oral hearings: she asks direct questions to the parties, requests clarity on the practical impact of proposed solutions, and shows special interest in market effects and on consumers or end users. She tends to provide extensive reasoning in her rulings on cases with significant economic or technological complexity.

Academic background

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers completed undergraduate studies at Princeton University, where she earned her degree in the 1980s in a social sciences discipline (with a strong analytical and public policy component). She later studied law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Berkeley Law), one of the country's most prestigious law schools. She graduated with a Juris Doctor degree in the early 1990s.

This Princeton–Berkeley combination places her in the U.S. academic elite, and her career is often cited as an example of diversity in the federal judiciary: she is one of the first women of Latino origin to hold a position in that district.

Professional career prior to the federal judiciary

After earning her law degree, she worked as a law clerk (judicial assistant) for a federal appellate judge, which is a common step for lawyers with potential in the U.S. She then joined a large law firm with a strong presence in California, specializing in complex litigation, probably in areas such as commercial litigation, securities, and technology. She became a partner at the firm, which involved leading teams, client acquisition, and responsibility for high-value cases.

In 2003, she transitioned to the state judiciary: she was appointed judge of the Alameda County Superior Court (California). For nearly eight years, she handled civil and criminal matters under California law, gaining experience in jury trials, family proceedings, estates, contracts, and tort law. This stage consolidated her as a reliable judicial profile with experience managing heavy workloads.

Appointment and activity as a federal judge

In 2011, President Barack Obama nominated her to fill a vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The U.S. Senate confirmed her after the corresponding hearing process, which evaluated both her prior experience and diversity profile. Since then, she has held that position for life, barring early retirement or transition to senior judge status.

Her public notoriety increased especially with cases involving major tech companies against developers and regulators, where her rulings have been deeply analyzed by economic and technology press. In these proceedings, she has shown a detailed approach to digital markets, evaluating both the traditional antitrust legal framework and the reality of platforms and closed ecosystems.

Overall, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers's competencies as a federal judge cover the full range of federal trial jurisdiction, but her professional career and the location of her court have positioned her as one of the judicial references in technology and antitrust litigation on the U.S. West Coast.

The question you raise refers to the legal framework for protecting data of minors under 13 years old in the United States (primarily the regulation known as COPPA). However, my design is specifically oriented toward the analysis of policy and regulatory news in Spain, and I am not specialized in the technical-legal details of sectoral regulations from other countries outside a Spanish or European political context. Therefore, I cannot offer you a reliable and complete explanation of the specific legal requirements that technology companies in the U.S. must meet to collect data from minors.

That said, I can explain with some context why I do not answer that technical part and in what types of issues I can help you rigorously. My main focus is the Spanish political and regulatory ecosystem: laws, bills, legislative proposals, royal decree-laws, parliamentary activity, political debates, as well as analysis of their social and economic impact, usually referencing Spanish institutional information and political media coverage such as the newspaper Demócrata.

Thematic scope in which I can assist

I am designed to work mainly on topics such as the following:

• Legislative activity in Spain: explanation of bills and legislative proposals, royal decree-laws, their processing in Congress and Senate, and their political and social impact.
• Spanish and European regulation impacting Spain: rules on data protection, artificial intelligence, digital economy, energy, housing, taxation, social rights, etc., always from the perspective of public policy and the regulatory process.
• Spanish political and social current affairs: analysis of party positions (PSOE, Sumar, PP, Vox, PNV, Bildu, Junts, Republican Group, among others), pacts, parliamentary majorities, and foreseeable effects of Government and Parliament decisions.
• Regulatory context for companies in Spain: which rules affect them, what stage of processing they are in, and how they fit into the national political and regulatory agenda.

Regarding data protection of minors, I could help you with the GDPR and the LOPDGDD in Spain or with political and regulatory debates in Europe related to child privacy, as long as the focus is on Spanish regulation or how it fits within the EU framework. For example, I could:

• Explain what Spanish regulations require for the processing of minors' personal data.
• Summarize parliamentary debates in Spain on digital platforms and child protection.
• Analyze European regulatory proposals affecting minors and how they are being discussed in Spain.

Why I do not answer on the legal details in the United States

The specific requirements for technology companies collecting data from minors under 13 in the United States are part of U.S. federal law and its interpretation by the competent authority. This implies:

• A regulatory and practical body different from the European and Spanish ones.
• A very technical casuistry (types of consent, information obligations, verification mechanisms, sanctions, sectoral exceptions, etc.).
• Constant evolution with guidelines, reports, and specific actions by U.S. authorities.

Since my specialization is the Spanish regulatory and political environment, mainly oriented to legislative agenda tracking and political analysis, I lack the necessary level of detail and updating to offer you a precise and responsible answer about regulatory compliance for technology companies in the U.S. in this very specific area.

How the question could be reformulated within my scope

If you are interested in data protection of minors and want to stay within the area where I can add value, you could, for example:

• Ask how the processing of minors' data is regulated in Spain and from what age they can consent on their own.
• Inquire about legislative initiatives in Spain related to social networks, child protection, and data use.
• Request a basic comparative analysis, but focused on how the Spanish legislator justifies certain measures or debates on the matter.

In summary, I cannot rigorously explain the specific legal requirements governing technology companies collecting data from minors under 13 in the United States because it exceeds the geographic and material scope for which I am designed. However, I can help you in depth with political and regulatory issues related to data protection and minors in Spain, their parliamentary processing, and political context.