On Wednesday, Meta agreed to pay $12 billion to settle claims made by 51 attorneys general in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and three US territories that the company designed Facebook and Instagram to addict kids and teens to its social media platforms. The deal contains an unusual arm-twist: Meta will pay $5 billion more if Snap, TikTok, and YouTube also agree to pay penalties and change their product algorithms.
The suit, which ultimately landed in Oakland federal court, also claimed Meta violated state and federal law by misleading the public, ignoring the dangers of social media, and illegally collecting children’s data. The agreement must win the approval of the judge handling the case, and effectively ends a trial that started Aug. 18.
Some legal experts cited the lawsuit’s success of simply getting to trial, because the AGs finally found a way through the armor technology companies have used for years to shield themselves from liability: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law that offers internet platforms broad immunity from harmful content posted by users. Passed into law in 1996, Section 230 has been a flimsy, if useful, platform for Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg to stand on. “Designing a feed to deliberately addict teens isn’t the kind of editorial activity that Section 230 was designed to protect,” explained Robin Feldman, a professor at UC Law San Francisco.
In a key decision that allowed the case to move forward, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in 2024 that Section 230 doesn’t immunize Meta from a “failure-to-warn of known risks of addiction.” But because the case was settled, trial was averted, and neither party got an appeals court ruling of a final judgement. As a result, Meta and other technology companies can continue to trot out Section 230 as a defense in the thousands of social media addiction cases pending across the country.
The reforms that Meta agreed to undertake also deserve closer scrutiny. In a statement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the settlement’s “strong injunctive terms designed to help protect children from the mental health harms associated with social media.” Meta agreed to daily time limits on Instagram and Facebook, a block on overnight use and push notifications during school hours (8 a.m. to 3 p.m.) that can only be lifted by a parent, parental supervision tools, and age verification measures. “Meta has agreed to make massive transformations that will reduce the risk of harm from its platforms — and will do it within months,” Bonta said.
Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, is skeptical that the restrictions Meta agreed to will curb kids’ online habits. “Another possibility is that it sends them to darker places that aren’t subject to that time limit, where they are maybe put at greater risk, and as a result, they're more exposed to sexual predators, or they’re more susceptible to personalized algorithms,” Goldman speculated, adding that the restrictions might redirect kids’ attention to generative AI. “So you’re not really solving the problem, you’re just squeezing the balloon.”
Goldman finds the deal’s contingency holding Meta responsible for the additional $5 billion only if Snap, TikTok, and YouTube join the deal particularly troubling. “The optics on that look absolutely terrible,” Goldman said. The AGs have “basically entered into a bet with Meta that if they can deliver some other trophies, Meta is going to pay them off $5 billion more.”
While Goldman pointed to the benefits of social media as an element complicating any government-negotiated settlement, there has been no shortage of evidence of social media’s harms and Meta’s role in perpetuating them. Just two years ago, former US Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy declared a mental health crisis among kids. In 2021, former Facebook data scientist and whistleblower Frances Haugen testified about company studies showing teen girls’ increased frequency of suicidal thoughts, eating disorders, and bad feelings about their body image after using Instagram. Then there’s the 2023 court filing in the Oakland case that revealed that Zuckerberg was alerted to the harms his company’s social media platforms were causing teens.
Another drawback of the settlement is that it allowed the Meta CEO to escape testifying as a witness about his understanding of those harms, and his role in pushing profits over protections. In the thousands of social media lawsuits still pending, and those filed as a result of the settlement, plaintiffs’ lawyers, parents, and school districts will continue their pursuit.
“He doesn't need this shit,” Goldman said. “He wants to be enjoying his castle in Ireland, or his ranch in Kauai. He doesn’t want to be going around and having some plaintiff’s lawyer trying to make their career by sticking it to him,” he added. “If I were him, I’d go ahead and hand over the reins to somebody else. I’d become a rancher.”
