Buried in Meta’s $18B settlement is a legal pass on kids’ data
Meta’s proposed settlement with attorneys general from 29 US states would require the company to build and test a system for identifying under-13 users, while also giving it protection from certain state claims over children’s data used for that purpose. The provision matters because it creates a long-term legal exemption within a child-safety case, raising concerns about whether Meta’s use of young users’ data can be effectively limited and monitored.
The settlement could cost Meta up to $18 billion and requires the age-assurance model to be developed, trained and tested within a year. It bars Meta from using under-13s’ data for advertising, marketing or algorithmic optimisation, and an independent auditor is intended to oversee compliance; however, the agreement does not specify what data will be retained, for how long, or how derived insights will be kept separate from other systems. Legal experts note that federal regulator the FTC, which chiefly enforces COPPA, is not party to the agreement, so its position remains unclear.
- Meta gains limited state-law protection for training child-age detection tools.
- The settlement requires age checks and could cost up to $18 billion.
- Uncertainty remains over retained data and federal enforcement.
New here? Start with this
Meta is the company behind Facebook and Instagram, which are widely used by children as well as adults. In the US, a federal law called COPPA limits how online services collect and use personal information from children under 13.
Attorneys general are senior legal officials in each US state who can bring cases over alleged breaches of state law. The proposed agreement involves officials from 29 states and would require Meta to develop a system to identify under-13 users, with an independent auditor checking compliance.
The case raises questions about how platforms can protect children while handling information about their age and activity. The US Federal Trade Commission, which enforces COPPA, is not part of the agreement, so its approach to the issue is separate.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A defined legal protection could give Meta room to build and test age-assurance tools without facing overlapping state claims for data use that the settlement itself requires. The agreement also bars using under-13s’ data for advertising, marketing or algorithmic optimisation, and provides for independent auditing, while potentially imposing substantial costs and a year-long deadline.
The case against
The exemption may weaken accountability in an agreement intended to protect children, especially because it does not specify how long data can be retained or how insights derived from it must be separated from other systems. With the FTC outside the settlement and its position unclear, critics can reasonably question whether state oversight and the promised limits will adequately constrain Meta’s use of children’s data.