Meta will pay up to $18 billion to settle states’ lawsuit alleging harms to young users
Meta has agreed to pay up to $18 billion (£14bn) and overhaul how Facebook and Instagram operate for teenagers, settling a lawsuit brought by dozens of US states over allegations that it designed its platforms to be addictive to young users and improperly collected children's data. The proposed settlement, which still requires court approval, resolves a case that went to trial this month and was reached before Instagram chief Adam Mosseri was due back on the witness stand. Meta denies any wrongdoing but has pledged a series of changes and urged rivals TikTok and YouTube to adopt similar measures.
Under the deal, under-18s will get a default two-hour daily time limit, an overnight app block between midnight and 6am, and periodic screen-time reminders, with parents able to adjust these settings. Meta says it will tighten limits further, to one hour a day and a 10pm-7am blackout, if TikTok and YouTube match its commitments; it will pay 70% of the $18 billion over ten years regardless, with the remaining roughly $5.3 billion contingent on rivals joining in. Other changes include hiding like counts, banning extreme makeup filters, offering a non-algorithmic feed option, allowing autoplay to be switched off, faster responses to harmful content reports, stronger under-13 detection and removal, and independent auditing, following a 2023 lawsuit alleging violations of children's online privacy law.
- Meta to pay up to $18bn settling states' lawsuit over youth harms
- New defaults: two-hour teen time limits, midnight-6am app blocks
- Meta urges TikTok, YouTube to adopt matching safety measures
New here? Start with this
Facebook and Instagram are owned by Meta, a US technology company. Its apps use features such as personalised feeds and notifications to keep people engaged, and many teenagers use them to share content and communicate.
US states brought the lawsuit, arguing that Meta designed its platforms in ways that could harm young users and collected children’s data improperly. The case also concerns protections for children under 13, whose personal information is covered by US privacy law.
The dispute matters because it raises questions about how social media companies should protect children and who should oversee those protections. TikTok and YouTube are also relevant: they are major platforms used by young people, and the case has prompted calls for similar safeguards across the industry.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics argue that Meta deliberately engineered highly addictive features targeting vulnerable youth whilst collecting their personal data extensively, prioritising engagement metrics over wellbeing despite documented harms to adolescent mental health and development. They contend that young people cannot meaningfully consent to such manipulative design practices, making this settlement and proposed safeguards necessary accountability and legal protection for a population requiring special consideration.
The case against
Defenders of Meta contend that social media engagement features are standard industry practices shared by TikTok, YouTube and other platforms, not uniquely manipulative to Meta, and that older teenagers retain genuine agency in choosing whether to use these services. They argue that parents already possess tools for limiting device use and that holding Meta uniquely accountable whilst other platforms employ identical engagement strategies raises fairness questions, viewing the settlement as reasonable compromise rather than admission of culpable wrongdoing.