Key witness in Meta trial says terms of settlement insufficient to halt apps’ harms to teenagers
A former Facebook safety engineer and key witness in the US case against Meta has said the company’s settlement with dozens of states does not adequately address the risks its platforms pose to teenagers. Arturo Béjar argues that limiting screen time is insufficient if Facebook and Instagram’s underlying algorithms continue to promote addictive or harmful experiences, and says the agreement should not be treated as proof that the products are safe.
The settlement requires Meta to introduce stricter teen time limits, default non-algorithmic feeds, stronger parental controls, and restrictions on features such as likes and beauty filters, alongside night and school modes. States alleged Meta designed addictive products linked to problems including depression, disordered eating and suicide; Meta denied wrongdoing, said it already has extensive protections, and maintained that social media can benefit teenagers.
- Béjar says Meta’s settlement fails to tackle harmful algorithmic design.
- The agreement adds teen limits, defaults and parental controls.
- Meta denies wrongdoing and cites existing safety protections.
New here? Start with this
Meta owns Facebook and Instagram, social media platforms that use algorithms to select and recommend posts for each user. Arturo Béjar, a former Facebook safety engineer, has become a key witness in a US legal case brought by states over how these services affect teenagers.
The states allege that Meta designed features that can encourage compulsive use and contribute to harms such as depression and disordered eating; Meta denies wrongdoing and says its services can benefit young people. The dispute matters because it concerns how social media companies should protect teenagers, and whether changes to time limits and controls address the risks created by the platforms themselves.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The settlement's protective measures are insufficient because they treat symptoms rather than the disease. If Meta's algorithms are designed to maximise engagement through addictive and emotionally intense content, then time limits merely reduce exposure to an inherently harmful product—like installing speed bumps on a dangerous road rather than fixing the steering. True protection requires algorithmic reform to prioritise teenage wellbeing over engagement metrics. Without such fundamental redesign, Meta can continue promoting harmful content more efficiently during teenagers' permitted screen time, rendering the settlement superficial.
The case against
The settlement represents substantive, enforceable progress that meaningfully protects teenagers within the constraints of practical litigation. The measures—including algorithmic feed options, strict time limits, parental controls, and restrictions on manipulative features—collectively reduce teenagers' exposure to harm whilst preserving platforms' ability to serve beneficial functions like community and information access. Perfect solutions are unattainable in litigation; this agreement achieves meaningful compromise that can be monitored and enforced by states. Demanding comprehensive algorithmic overhaul risks years of legal challenge, whereas these incremental protections provide real safeguards now.
Americas Art Business Celebrity Culture Entertainment Government Politics World