Meta is one of the wealthiest companies in the world. Last year, it generated nearly $201 billion in revenue, and by the end of June it held more than $90 billion in cash and marketable securities.

Now, a federal trial in Oakland, Calif., is testing what it would take to financially damage a company of that size. California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey have accused Meta of misleading the public about the risks its platforms pose to young users and of designing features on Instagram and Facebook that keep children and teenagers engaged. The four states are moving first in a case brought by a coalition of 29 state attorneys general that sued the company in 2023.

Meta is already facing child-safety lawsuits around the country, but this case carries added significance because of who brought it. State attorneys general can raise claims private plaintiffs cannot, including claims under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA. They can also seek remedies meant to address alleged harms affecting potentially millions of people, which is part of why the Oakland trial could influence how similar cases are pursued elsewhere.

“The stakes might be higher in this case because the damages awards are going to measure potentially many millions of people’s harms,” Eric Goldman, co-director of Santa Clara University School of Law’s High Tech Law Institute, told Fortune. “And there might be extra remedies because of the specific claims that the attorney general can bring.”

That helps explain the extraordinary figure associated with the case: $1.4 trillion.

Meta says potential penalties could reach that amount under the states’ theory of the case, placing the theoretical maximum near the company’s own value.

“It’s a number that boggles the mind, frankly,” Goldman said.

At the most extreme end, Goldman said, the damages Meta has described could effectively shift the value held by Meta’s stockholders to the public.

“Essentially, it’s asking Meta to turn in the keys and walk away,” he said.

Reaching anywhere near $1.4 trillion is another matter. The eight-person jury in the case is advisory, leaving U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers with the final say on liability and remedies.

James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and information law at Cornell University, told Fortune he does not expect the bellwether trial to end with a penalty that bankrupts Meta.

“It’s always hard to guess with damage awards,” Grimmelmann said. “The jury is purely advisory, so whatever it concludes won’t be binding on the court, and even if it comes in with an extremely high number, the judge could revise it and so could other courts on appeal.”

New Mexico may offer a preview of what a major state-level financial penalty could look like. Earlier this year, a jury there found Meta liable for 75,000 violations of the state’s consumer protection law, leading to $375 million in civil penalties. A judge later ruled that Meta’s platforms constituted a public nuisance and ordered the company to pay another $567 million to address youth mental-health harms, bringing total liability in that case to $942 million. Meta is appealing.

But the Oakland case is about more than the size of any check Meta could be ordered to write, because the legal theories being tested could shape how regulators and courts approach platform design claims in other cases.

What Meta says the states get wrong

“The State AGs may call this a landmark case, but their limited claims are unsubstantiated and their financial demands are vastly disproportionate,” Meta spokesperson Stephanie Otway told Fortune in an emailed statement.

Meta says the states have not shown that anyone in their states was misled or harmed by the features at issue, and argues the attorneys general are trying to punish the company for what it calls “industry-wide challenges like age verification,” Otway said.

“Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout,” Otway said. “We stand by our record of creating strong protections for teens, and look forward to making our case in court.”

Less than 1% of Meta’s revenue comes from teens on Instagram, but Goldman said that figure does not answer the central question in the case.

“The relevant question is how much harm is Meta causing in society,” Goldman said.

Goldman said millions of young people still use Meta’s services. If the states persuade the court that those users were harmed, the potential liability is not necessarily limited by the share of revenue Meta directly makes from teens on Instagram.

And money is only one possible consequence.

The fight over how social media works

The attorneys general are challenging the choices Meta made about how its platforms are designed and how content is presented to users. That distinction is central to why the case has advanced this far.

Section 230 generally shields internet companies from liability for content posted by their users. The states argue they are not suing Meta over what users post; they are challenging Meta’s own decisions about how that content is presented.

Goldman said he does not believe those two things can be separated so neatly.

“To me, that distinction is illusory. That makes no sense,” Goldman said. “You can’t separate out the editorial function and say we’re going to extinguish the content and the way it’s presented. Those are the same thing in my mind, but Judge Rogers disagreed, and that’s why this case has gotten to trial.”

Goldman also raised a First Amendment concern. He compared Meta’s decisions about how it presents users’ posts to the editorial choices a publication makes about which stories receive greater prominence, such as how large a headline appears or whether a story includes photographs. In his view, those are expressive choices protected by the First Amendment. Those arguments have not stopped the case from going to trial.

The outcome could matter far beyond whether Meta pays hundreds of millions, billions, or anything approaching $1.4 trillion.

TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat face similar litigation over alleged harms to young users. Goldman said a victory for the states in Oakland could become a playbook for challenges to how other social media platforms are designed.

The implications may also extend beyond social media. Goldman pointed to lawsuits already testing similar theories against generative AI, video games and social gaming.

That makes the potential penalty only one part of what is being decided in Oakland. Meta can challenge any damages award on appeal. A legal theory that survives the case can be used again.

“That’s why I say that the internet is on trial in Oakland right now, because it’s not just Meta and it’s not just social media,” Goldman said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com