Will Meta settlement reduce physical, mental health risks for young users?

Science & Tech

Will Meta settlement reduce physical, mental health risks for young users?

Christina Pazzanese

Harvard Staff Writer

August 28, 2026

long read

Experts say many of its terms may help limit use, negative social comparisons, but regulation may still be necessary

Now we’ll see whether it works, specialists on technology law say.

Meta decided on Aug. 26 to settle a lawsuit brought by dozens of state attorneys general for nearly $18 billion over claims that it endangered the physical and mental health of children and teens with its addictive social media platforms, including Facebook and Instagram.

In addition to the payout, Meta agreed to modify a number of design features that critics and researchers say encourage excessive use as well as those that psychologists say lead users to making unhealthy negative social comparisons between themselves and peers or influencers.

The recent Meta case was being closely watched by legal experts and is considered a bellwether. But legal scholars note that it is just one of thousands still pending against social media companies.

In this edited discussion, the Gazette asked Leah Plunkett ’01, J.D. ’06, Meyer Research Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center (BKC), and Christian Sandvig, a BKC fellow who studies the ethics of information technology and is part of the Center’s new AI & Youth Safety Initiative, about their take on the agreement.

Gazette: How big of a deal is this settlement?

Leah Plunkett: This is a huge deal. This is a paradigm-shifting deal when it comes to social media and the way it interacts with kid and teen users, as well as the family, schools, and communities around them. It is also paradigm-shifting in terms of what those kids, teens, families, schools, and communities can expect in their interactions.

I think it sends a huge warning shot across the bow for any AI or other emerging tech company. If they choose to take the same push-the-boundaries, see-if-you-can-get-away-with-it approach that the social media companies have by and large taken, it’s going to be trillions with a T instead of billions with a B when the tab is called for them because of the size and scale they’re operating in.

The other thing about this is we see the states decisively establish themselves as the trusted leaders for the public interest when it comes to kids, teens, schools, families, communities, and digital life. The federal government has not succeeded in providing the type of comprehensive statutory or regulatory reform, or even the sustained and creative types of enforcement actions that are needed in such a complicated tech landscape.

Christian Sandvig: It’s great news and it’s terrible news at the same time. I was happy about it, but there are some serious problems with it.

I would say there’s a consensus that the platforms are causing harm, and it’s always nice to see a settlement or some sort of judicial process where people who have been wronged are made good. So, generally speaking, it seems like steps in the right direction.

I was pleased that there are interface changes that have to be done by the platforms. Some are straightforward and obvious, things that, in the trial, the whistleblower was identifying as necessary. That’s great that they’re doing those things as opposed to just the money.

“The period of lockout — 12 a.m. to 6 a.m. — is really well-supported by evidence. Researchers have found that sleep disruption is a big consequence of using these apps.”Christian Sandvig

The period of lockout — 12 a.m. to 6 a.m. — is really well-supported by evidence. Researchers have found that sleep disruption is a big consequence of using these apps. So, if you had children who are bound to the account, and there’s a way to enforce that it’s really a child’s account, then that seems like a positive move.

But the negative side of it is — just to take one example — Facebook introduced the “like” button in 2009. Academic researchers were writing about how this could be harmful to adolescents as early as 2013. I wrote a paper about it in 2013, and it’s 2026.

And so, if this is our template for regulating technology, it failed. We didn’t do anything about it for such a huge number of years.

The other negative is it only affects Meta; the other apps don’t have to do anything. Even if it just affects Meta and it’s good, we still have some questions about whether the specific features that have been proposed are going to work.

For an example there’s an exception for direct messaging. But we know that direct messaging is a source of all kinds of horrible things that youth and teens have to experience on social media, like bullying and sexual imagery that is unwanted.

By settling, is Meta essentially conceding that some of these features are potentially harmful to children and teens?

Plunkett: What I see Meta doing here is while preserving, as a legal matter, their position that they’re not admitting wrongdoing, as a practical matter, and certainly as an optics matter, for the public this is Meta behaving as if they know that major features and operations of their platforms have been risky and harmful to kids and teens, and by extension, their families, schools, and communities.

Or at minimum, they are unable to establish convincingly, both in court and in the court of public opinion, that these major design and operations features of their platforms were safe or neutral.

Are any of the feature modifications Meta has agreed to make, such as limiting the amount of time and time of day younger users can be on the platforms, likely to make a difference?

Plunkett: I’ve been reading through the 122-page settlement document. What I am seeing so far is we have age assurance, which is a necessary, but not in and of itself sufficient, condition to provide protections. Age assurance is a bit like coming up with a way to ID at the front door of a restaurant and see if somebody gets the drink bracelet or not. It does not act as a safety protection; it’s identification.

I’m seeing what the settlement agreement is calling “time management,” meaning overall duration of time allowed per day, night access mode 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. based on the device’s local time zone.

Push notifications will be disabled, which is a big deal. “Meta must implement productive pauses and notices to reduce or prevent excessive mindless or unintended teen usage.” I think that may almost matter more than the hours, because core to Meta’s business model is directing and capturing focus and attention. I do think that matters.

The settlement agreement also has Meta agreeing to “identification of suspected secondary accounts.” It looks to me that this is designed to help try to cut back on teens having multiple accounts. But, whether it’s Meta or any other social media platform, a teen with a real commitment to do an end run could figure it out. There are any number of ways that teens could still try to get around this.

A lot of people are talking about this settlement as being a Big Tobacco moment. That is true in a descriptive way. My understanding from the state AGs’ press releases is that this is the largest state consumer protection settlement in history outside of the big tobacco settlements of the ’90s just in terms of money.

What still isn’t being done that you think would make a difference?

Plunkett: I think it is really significant that Meta is taking these steps around what they’re calling the social comparison tools. These types of tools have documented impacts on young people’s health and sense of self and emerging identity.

“I think it is really significant that Meta is taking these steps around what they’re calling the social comparison tools. These types of tools have documented impacts on young people’s health and sense of self and emerging identity.”Leah Plunkett

The reason it’s so important is that these kinds of social comparison filters are in a somewhat odd or even sensitive place from a legal perspective in terms of whether they are speech or activities by the platform or by companies authorized to be on the platform that might enjoy some type of free speech or even Section 230 protection such that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a federal or state legislature or a federal or state regulator to ban them or limit them.

So, to have the platform itself say, “we’re dialing these back” is really the best way for this to be addressed, because it gets us out of some of these complicated and still very much emerging and unsettled questions.

There’s a lot in the injunctive relief part of the settlement that is designed to limit or prohibit teens from being contacted by inappropriate other users or seeing inappropriate content. There’s better parental safety and supervision; there’s better content reporting. If that all happens, that’s really big.

What I would like to see Meta and the other platforms do as well is put ethical, practical limitations in place on the marketplaces that exist for child and teen influencer content that draw adult audiences, particularly adult audiences who have — to use the language of the settlement — inappropriate intentions or, in some instances, illegal or criminal intentions.

I do think that there still are a lot of marketplaces on Meta and other social media platforms where we are seeing parents or other adults monetize and, in too many instances, exploit the private experiences of or performances by their kids or kids in their lives for the viewing pleasure, advertising dollars, brand sponsorships, of other adults and institutions.

This settlement does not look to me like it is going to meaningfully disrupt and regulate those entertainment marketplaces. That remains a pretty big area of my concern. But that was not the focus of the AGs’ litigation.

Sandvig: The issue that researchers have pointed out is it’s fundamental to the technology, and so it’s not clear how to solve them with features. Researchers have complained that many of the safety features already in all social media platforms are ineffective. They are usually settings, and they’re hard to find.

In this settlement, there are instances of changing things that used to be opt-in to things that affect everybody or all children on the platform. So, it’s clear that someone was listening to that criticism.

But then there are still other features that were implemented as options, like the algorithmic feed versus chronological feed. That’s an option that no one would use, I think.

This isn’t probably something that we should solve with repeated lawsuits, but rather some structure of regulation. Political commentators say this is a bipartisan issue where we have consensus, which is very rare. That there’s a lot of people in both parties who are excited about doing something about this. I guess the downside of the settlement is perhaps it makes that harder because people might think the problem has been solved.