An $18bn settlement – and Zuckerberg barely blinked. The tech titans must be stripped of their power, and soon | Jonathan Freedland
Meta has agreed an $18bn settlement with 29 US states over claims that Facebook and Instagram harmed children, but the author argues the deal does little to curb the company’s wider power. Meta’s rising share price after the announcement is presented as evidence that investors consider the settlement manageable and that the company has avoided a more damaging court judgment or finding of liability.
The settlement includes default safety measures, restricted overnight and school-day access, a two-hour daily cap and less prominent display of likes, but these measures apply only in the US and may be easy to circumvent. The $18bn will be paid over 10 years, is less than a month of Meta’s revenue, and nearly a third depends on TikTok and YouTube accepting similar restrictions; former safety engineer Arturo Béjar said Meta knew of harmful experiences reported by young users but publicly denied the scale of the problem.
- Meta’s $18bn settlement is significant but financially limited.
- New child-safety measures apply only in the United States.
- The author urges stronger action against big tech’s power.
New here? Start with this
Meta owns Facebook and Instagram, two of the world’s largest social media platforms. US states have brought claims over whether the services’ design and features harm young users, while Meta has faced criticism from former staff, including safety engineer Arturo Béjar, over how it handled reports of harmful experiences.
The settlement with 29 states sets limits on some features and when young people can use the platforms, but applies only in the US. It is spread over 10 years, and part of the payment depends on TikTok and YouTube agreeing to similar restrictions.
The dispute matters because it raises questions about how far governments can regulate social media companies and who should be responsible for protecting children online. Meta’s size and influence mean the outcome could shape debates about rules for other major technology firms.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The settlement can be defended as a practical step that secures concrete protections for young users, including limits on access and less prominent likes, without waiting for lengthy litigation. A negotiated, phased agreement may be more workable than a sweeping court order, and Meta’s rising share price does not by itself show that the safeguards are ineffective.
The case against
Critics can argue that the settlement is too limited to match the scale of the alleged harm: it applies only in the US, may be easy to circumvent, and spreads payments over a decade. If the company knew of troubling experiences yet publicly played them down, a deal that avoids a liability finding and leaves its broader influence largely intact may provide too little accountability or incentive to change.