Meta has agreed to make significant changes to the way teenagers use Facebook and Instagram after reaching a landmark settlement with 29 US states over allegations that its platforms were deliberately designed to be addictive and were contributing to mental health problems among young people. The agreement, announced on Wednesday, brings an abrupt end to a closely watched federal trial in Oakland, California, and could result in Meta paying as much as $18 billion over the next decade.
The lawsuit, led by California and joined by 28 other states, accused Meta of designing its social media products in ways that encouraged young users to spend excessive amounts of time on the platforms. Prosecutors alleged that the company was aware of potential harms linked to Facebook and Instagram, including anxiety, depression, disordered eating and suicidal behaviour, while also failing to adequately protect children. The states further alleged that Meta collected personal information from children under 13 without obtaining the required parental consent.
Under the settlement, Meta will introduce a series of safeguards aimed at reducing teenagers’ exposure to excessive social media use. Among the most significant measures is a default daily usage limit of two hours for users under 18. The agreement will also restrict access to the platforms during overnight hours, while notifications will be disabled during school hours and at night. Several features associated with social comparison, including certain beauty and plastic-surgery filters and the display of “likes”, will also face restrictions.
The measures will largely be activated by default for teenage accounts, marking a major shift from Meta’s previous approach, under which many safety and parental-control features required users or parents to opt in. The settlement will also require stronger age verification and give parents greater control over how their children use Facebook and Instagram. Teenagers will also be offered non-personalised feeds as a default option, reducing the role of algorithmic recommendations in determining what content they see.
The financial settlement is expected to be distributed among the participating states over 10 years and remains subject to court approval. California is expected to receive between $1.5 billion and $2.1 billion, while Colorado is set to receive around $615 million. State officials described the agreement as a major victory for child safety, arguing that the changes to Meta’s platforms were more important than the financial compensation.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the settlement would lead to substantial changes intended to reduce risks to children and teenagers. Officials stressed that the objective of the lawsuit was not simply to secure financial damages but to force Meta to change the way its products operate for young users.
Meta, however, has denied wrongdoing and has not admitted liability as part of the agreement. The company has maintained that it already has extensive measures aimed at protecting teenagers and has argued that concerns about youth safety cannot be addressed by targeting a single technology company. Meta Chief Legal Officer CJ Mahoney called for other major platforms, including TikTok, YouTube and Snap, to adopt comparable safeguards, arguing that teenagers frequently move between multiple social media services.
The settlement came just days after the trial began and brought proceedings to an unexpectedly early conclusion. The case had initially been expected to continue for several weeks and potentially feature testimony from Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg was listed as a potential witness but did not testify before the agreement was reached. Instagram chief executive Adam Mosseri had already appeared in court and faced questions over the company’s disclosure of data concerning the use of its teen-safety tools.
One of the most prominent witnesses was former Meta safety engineer Arturo Béjar, who became a whistleblower after raising concerns about the company’s handling of risks to young users. Béjar testified that Meta had been aware of problems affecting teenagers and accused the company of failing to respond adequately to internal warnings. Following the settlement, however, he criticised the agreement for failing to address what he considers the deeper problem: the algorithmic design of social media platforms that encourages prolonged engagement.
Béjar argued that simply limiting the amount of time teenagers can spend on Facebook and Instagram would not necessarily make the platforms safer if the underlying recommendation systems and engagement mechanisms remain largely unchanged. He also raised concerns about the absence of stronger independent oversight and measurable requirements for reducing harm.
The agreement comes as Meta faces thousands of other lawsuits in the US involving allegations that its platforms have harmed young people. Other major social media companies, including TikTok, Snap and YouTube, are also facing legal and regulatory scrutiny over the impact of their products on children and teenagers. Meta has previously faced a separate legal setback in New Mexico, where it was ordered to pay nearly $1 billion over allegations relating to child sexual exploitation on its platforms.
The latest settlement could therefore have implications extending well beyond Meta. US state officials have indicated that similar discussions are taking place with other technology companies, while governments in other countries are increasingly examining restrictions on children’s access to social media. The UK, for instance, has already urged Meta to provide British teenagers with protections comparable to those agreed in the US.
For Meta, the agreement represents a substantial financial commitment as well as a rare requirement to alter core features of its platforms. For regulators and child-safety advocates, the settlement is being viewed as an important test of whether stronger safeguards can reduce the risks associated with social media use among young people. The longer-term impact, however, is likely to depend on how effectively the new restrictions are implemented and whether other major social media platforms adopt similar measures.
