Say goodbye to doomscrolling and Stories? Some of Meta’s biggest features are on trial.

Imagine opening Instagram and reaching the bottom of your feed.

Or having to press play on every Reel yourself.

Stories no longer disappear after 24 hours, beauty filters are restricted, and the algorithm has less control over what you see next.

That version of Instagram may sound almost unrecognizable, but it could become a reality if Meta loses a landmark lawsuit brought by California and 28 other states.

The states accuse Meta of deliberately designing Facebook and Instagram to keep children and teenagers online while concealing what it knew about the potential harms.

Infinite scrolling, autoplaying videos, disappearing Stories, beauty filters, push notifications, visible "likes," and algorithm-driven feeds are all under scrutiny.

SEE ALSO: Which countries have banned social media for kids? That means this case isn’t only about whether Meta owes an enormous amount of money , but it could determine whether Instagram and Facebook are allowed to keep working the way we know them.

"Hook, hold, harvest, hide." The trial began Aug.

18 in Oakland, California, and is expected to last six to eight weeks.

California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are leading this phase of the case, with support from 25 other coalition members, including Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Wisconsin.

During opening statements, California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill summed up Meta’s alleged strategy with four words: "hook, hold, harvest, hide." According to the states, Meta "hooks" young users with psychologically compelling features, "holds" their attention for as long as possible, "harvests" their data, and then "hides" evidence of the resulting harm from the public.

The lawsuit goes beyond the familiar argument that teenagers simply spend too much time on their phones.

In their federal complaint , the states allege Meta deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to exploit young people’s lower impulse control and heightened sensitivity to rewards.

They also accuse the company of collecting personal information from children under 13 without parental consent, in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act , and misleading parents and users about the safety of its platforms.