The legal case being taken against Meta in the US over the design of its platforms came to an abrupt halt on Wednesday.
The social media giant agreed a settlement that not only included a multibillion-dollar payout to a number of US states but also some changes to how its platforms work.
More than two dozen US states were involved, with the case being spearheaded by four state attorneys general, in California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey.
What does the settlement mean for Meta?
In settling the case, Meta has put an end – for now – to the public hearing of claims that the company designed its platforms (Facebook, Instagram) to be addictive and that it tried to “hook users, hold them, harvest their data and hide the truth from the public”.
READ MORE
The company has denied any wrongdoing. But the agreement it made could have a wider impact on the company and its business.
[ Meta reaches $16.68bn settlement over social media harms to childrenOpens in new window ]
There are two parts to the settlement: the financial penalty and the changes that Meta has committed to make to its platform.
On the financial penalty, while Meta has agreed a settlement that on paper is worth around $17 billion (€14.6 billion), that isn’t the whole story. Meta has committed to pay $12.7 billion of that figure – around 70 per cent – to the states, and that is over a period of 10 years.
To put that in context, in the second quarter of 2026, Meta reported revenue of $60.8 billion, and profit of $15.85 billion. That was three months in one year alone. The legal expenses tied to the settlement are expected to reach $10 billion.
The remainder of that settlement is dependent on two conditions being fulfilled – and they both relate to rivals TikTok and YouTube.
Meta said it will pay the rest of the money when YouTube and TikTok agree to similar restrictions for younger users, ie a daily time limit, restrictions on night-time use and age-assurance measures, and when the two platforms each pay an amount that equals the 30 per cent Meta still has to pay.
Will the upcoming budget drive inflation and increase costs for Irish households?
The entire total is a fraction of what the company could have been forced to pay, with estimates ranging from $200 billion to more than $1 trillion.
The other part of the agreement deals with the platform itself, and that is likely to have a bigger impact on Meta.
What changes are being made?
Much of what the states had targeted in the legal action was covered by the settlement.
As part of the settlement, Meta said it would impose a two-hour daily time limit – which will drop down to one hour if YouTube and TikTok follow suit – and limit under-18s’ use of Instagram between midnight and 6am.
The algorithmic feed that recommends content can be turned off, with a non-algorithmic feed set as the default either by teens or their parents. Notifications will be silenced between 8am and 3pm – considered the average school hours – and “like” counts on posts will be hidden.
Autoplay can be turned off, and teens will also get regular reminders of their screen time, effectively ending the infinite scroll feature that has become an integral part of Instagram. Meta also agreed to ban the use of plastic surgery and extreme make-up filters for teenage users, strengthen age-verification measures, and beef up parental controls.
For those working for child safety online, though, the outcome is “frustrating”.
“What frustrates me most about this is it’s on Meta’s terms again. Why are these companies the ones setting the standard, determining what that standard should be or how high the bar should be?” said Alex Cooney from CyberSafeKids.
“The onus of proof should be on these companies to prove that their products are safe before use, especially for children.”
What does it mean for social media users?
At the moment, that depends on where you are located. If you are in the US, specifically in one of the states covered by the settlement, the changes that Meta has agreed to implement should become live in the next six months.
Outside of that, though, is less clear. Meta has said that the settlement only applies to the US states involved, which means if you were hoping to see the same changes come to Irish teens, you might be disappointed.
However, there is pressure building on Meta from numerous countries to make meaningful changes to its platform. And now that the tech giant has shown it is not only possible for it to make these changes but that it is willing to do so, other jurisdictions may follow suit.
What is happening here?
In Europe, Meta is under scrutiny under the provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA), a process that has been continuing while the US cases were winding their way to court. The European Commission opened an investigation into Meta on addictive designs in May 2024, and subsequently found it in breach of the DSA.
“The commission is in continuous dialogue with Meta, who still has the possibility to offer solid commitments in the EU,” a spokesperson said. “The commission will continue enforcing the Digital Services Act to ensure that users, especially minors, are not exposed to addictive designs and harmful content online.”
[ The Irish Times view on social media regulation: accountability is long overdueOpens in new window ]
Those commitments are widely expected to include proposals around screen time management and parental controls similar to what the company has introduced in the US to settle the court case.
There could be more to come. A few months ago, Coimisiún na Meán said it was investigating Instagram and Facebook to see if they breached the DSA by failing to provide information and transparent options on content recommender feeds.
The commission said it had spoken with Meta since the settlement was announced, and the discussions were positive. “Let’s see what they formally put on the table in the EU to protect our citizens.”
What else could happen?
In the UK, the government has already said it expects Meta’s US protections to be applied there. But it is also planning to implement a social media ban for young people next year. Denmark and Spain have also raised the possibility of restricting access to social media.
The European Union could introduce something similar, what the commission calls a delay in accessing social media for younger users. That is one more weapon the commission has at its disposal.
While the DSA and the European Commission’s work under its rules is widely addressing systemic issues, there is also the possibility that other agencies here could take action. People can take complaints to the Data Protection Commissioner, which launched High Court proceedings against Twitter International Unlimited Company over concerns about how it processed the personal data of millions of European users of X.
In the meantime, Meta and other social media companies are facing more legal actions in the US. So while this particular chapter may be over, the case against social media is not.
