Meta is so confident everything is working fine that it spent $17bn to avoid having to prove it
For the benefit of those of you who may have missed it, the big news in tech is that Meta has splashed out up to $17 billion to let everybody know that it denies any wrongdoing. While denying that it has done anything wrong, Meta is, nevertheless, going to make what some have described as big changes to its current models for Instagram and Facebook (which, just to remind you, work perfectly fine and are in no way harmful to anybody) by introducing safeguards for teenage users.
Meta’s $17 billion public endorsement of its practices and its pride in “the work it has done to protect kids historically” (to quote the company’s chief legal officer, CJ Mahoney) also helps to save significant legal costs for the 51 Attorney Generals (AGs) that had brought the lawsuit as the trial, expected to last for several weeks, ended after only four days. Great job saving that public money, guys!
The lawsuit, which sought damages of up to $200 billion, accused the company of designing products that were deliberately addictive for young people, causing mental health issues, including anxiety, depression and suicide. It also claimed Meta violated federal and state laws by collecting data on children under the age of 13 without parental permission.
Before Meta’s agreement to pay up to $17 billion to deny any wrongdoing, a company spokesman had accused the states of chasing “an outlandish payout” instead of “sticking to the facts of the law”, adding: “The state AGs may call this a landmark case, but their limited claims are unsubstantiated and their financial demands are vastly disproportionate. The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalise Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification.”
Thankfully, the states appear to have agreed that Meta could pay up to $17 billion to claim it was not guilty of any wrongdoing while Meta has agreed to change its features even though they are “benign”. As an aside there may be some substance to the “outlandish payout” claim as Phil Weiser, the AG of Colorado, noted in a statement that: “The relief we are getting in this settlement is very meaningful and well beyond what any court has ordered or is likely to order”.
Despite Meta’s denial of any wrongdoing, Brian L. Schwalb, AG of the District of Columbia, said it had “intentionally exploited kids for profit and then lied about it, claiming its products were safe when its own internal research confirmed the platforms were addictive and harmful”.
Describing the settlement as “a monumental public health victory for young people in DC and across the country”, he claimed Meta’s new safety features “will fundamentally and immediately change how young people use Instagram and Facebook”. While Meta was “the first platform to come to the table and agree to such comprehensive reforms. It will not be the last”.
More to come
This is something acknowledged by the terms of the settlement with $5 billion of the proposed amount being contingent on other social media platforms, such as TikTok, Snap and YouTube, following suit and agreeing to make changes while denying all wrongdoing. Some of the measures being put in place by Meta will be enhanced, such as the two hour time limit reducing to one hour and night time restrictions being increased from 10pm to 7am, if other social media companies follow suit.
California AG Rob Bonta described the settlement as “transformative” and “a major step forward” in the ongoing quest “to make sure that our children are safe everywhere, including online”.
There are probably people reading this article thinking it would be a great idea if some of these restrictions were extended to all age groups, as the damage and harm caused by social media companies is not confined to under 18s.
It will be interesting to see how zealously Meta and the states enforce these measures and restrictions. The amount the company has pledged to pay, that is not dependent on other social media companies following suit, is roughly 0.6% of its 2025 turnover, the equivalent of someone on a salary of €30,000 offering to pay €179 a year over 10 years.
Nevertheless, it represents a victory of some sorts but might not be the best option to pursue on this side of the Atlantic. Social media companies are usually described as platforms for a reason. Their purpose is to enable the publishing and broadcasting of material to a wide and varied audience. Some of that material, be it printed words or video, is designed to cause harm and offence. Some of it may encourage or glorify criminal behaviour, racism, homophobia, discrimination, violence, misogyny, Islamophobia, anti-semitism and much more.
Any publisher or broadcaster disseminating such material would be held responsible for publishing or broadcasting that content and liable for it. Publishers and broadcasters are subject to well-established rules and regulations. There are also libel laws which, while open to abuse, provide protections against the publication or broadcasting of malicious and damaging falsehoods. There is no reason why social media platforms should not be held to the same standard.
TikTok sits it out
The recent M9 tragedy is clear evidence of platforms delivering an audience for certain content that amplifies and glamourises criminality with devastating consequences. It is worth pointing out, however, that those consequences are rarely meted upon the social media companies. Note, for instance, TikTok’s refusal to attend the Oireachtas media committee to answer questions on online content promoting criminal activity.
Committee chair Alan Kelly described the decision not to attend as “frankly unacceptable, given the seriousness of the issues we are seeking to examine”. He said the committee wanted to “understand the processes currently in place to protect users, particularly younger users, from content that glorifies dangerous, reckless or illegal behaviour”.
Kelly described TikTok as “one of the most influential social media platforms in Ireland. With that influence comes an enormous responsibility”.
Which is all very laudable but words are cheap. Politicians love to talk tough but they rarely follow through with any concrete action when it comes to social media companies and Big Tech. The plain truth is that those companies don’t have any responsibility, enormous or otherwise, because they don’t acknowledge that they do. It is deceitful to pretend otherwise. If the government refuses to enforce responsibility and liability on social media platforms, it shouldn’t be surprised when companies like TikTok treat it so dismissively.
Nothing will change until social media platforms are brought under the same regulatory regime as publishers and broadcasters. There is no sign that they will be any time soon.
Subscribers 0
Fans 0
Followers 0
Followers