Meta to Pay $16.7 Billion in Landmark Youth Harm Settlement
Social media giant mandates daily limits and nighttime blocks for teenage users on Instagram and Facebook following multi-state legal action.
Callum Smith
Meta will pay up to $16.7 billion to settle a major US court case.
This agreement marks the first instance Meta has been forced to alter its platforms' core functionality, reached during a federal trial in Oakland, California.
The trial addressed claims brought by 29 states, alleging social media companies have harmed youth.
A federal appeals court declined to stay the trial just days before jury selection on August 12.
Attorneys General from 29 US states claim Meta knowingly damaged young people’s wellbeing with its platforms, deliberately making its social media apps addictive for children.
States' lawyers contend Meta exploited how kids’ brains work to keep them addicted to social media, asserting that Meta’s business model is built upon a ploy to hook users and then hide the truth.
Unspecified accusers claim Meta has been accused of using tools to ensure its users are hooked to social media.
Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey claim Meta breached state consumer protection laws.
Furthermore, 29 states claim Meta violated the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by harvesting personal data from users known to be minors without parental consent, reportedly using the information to train generative AI and machine learning models.
The settlement provides consumer protection funds across participating states.
An independent auditor will assess these mandated changes, with oversight provided by the 29 states involved in the legal action.
Several state attorneys general issued advisories announcing upcoming press conferences; the office of Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford plans to outline 'a major consumer protection settlement involving a leading technology company.'
Meta indicated that Meta could not have deceived consumers about whether its services were addictive, reasoning that 'social media addiction' is not a recognized psychiatric condition.
Meta, however, claims it could not have deceived consumers about whether its services were addictive, reasoning that 'social media addiction' is not a recognized psychiatric condition.