Meta’s settlement is a starting point

When a blockbuster trial opened this month in California in which four US states representing a broader group sued Meta over allegations that its Facebook and Instagram platforms designed addictive features that harmed children’s mental health, few expected it to be over within a few days. But last week Meta agreed to pay up to $18bn to settle the case, one of the largest settlements ever reached by a US tech company. It also committed to safeguards intended to make its platforms safer for young users. While they don’t yet go far enough, they could be expanded internationally.

Trials are not the best way to resolve public safety issues, but US litigation has again shown its capacity to force changes in corporate behaviour where the country’s legislators and regulators have failed. Even $18bn is, of course, small change for Meta, and well below the $200bn the states had sought. Meta said payment of $5.3bn of the total is contingent on YouTube and TikTok each agreeing matching payments and imposing similar restrictions on teens. For now, the safety commitments apply only to Meta, and only in the US.

But the attempt to bind in YouTube and TikTok is significant: research suggests teens use their platforms more frequently, and both face litigation too. Other governments, moreover, some of which plan to follow Australia by banning minors from social media, now have leverage to demand similar safeguards. Indeed, the settlement could be seen as a starting point for what Meta and others might be made to agree to in return for bans being shelved.

The question for policymakers is whether such steps can be better at keeping teens safe than attempting to block their access to social media. Australia’s pioneering ban has proved distinctly patchy, with many under-16s finding ways to dodge it.

The Meta settlement requires the company to build an age-assurance framework to tighten the age bar on under-13s and distinguish 13 to 17-year-olds from adults, using either third-party or its own technology. There are performance standards with annual third-party testing — though there is no guarantee that Meta can reach these.

Assuming age verification can be made more effective, the strongest parts of the deal are a two-hour limit on use across Facebook and Instagram, a blackout period from midnight to 6am, and a block on push notifications from 10pm to 7am and during school hours. Similarly welcome is hiding “likes” and reaction counts — a big driver of addictive behaviour — by default on posts created by children’s accounts, and banning “beauty” filters that simulate cosmetic enhancements, which can intensify body image anxiety.

There are glaring weaknesses on some of the most addictive features, though. Algorithmic feeds, where Meta continues to serve up content designed to maximise engagement, remain the default even if teenagers have to be offered a “chronological”, non-personalised feed option that parents can set as the default. And “infinite scroll” remains standard, though Meta must impose “productive pauses” — freezing the feed — after 15, 60 and 90 minutes of continuous use.

One of the biggest problems with setting rules for Big Tech, moreover, has proved to be that by the time they are agreed, technology has moved on. How social media works could yet be transformed by AI and other innovations — and new market entrants. If they are to escape more countrywide bans on minors, Meta and other social media platforms will need to agree to work proactively with regulators to adapt safeguards and adopt new ones over time. A “safe by design” approach may be preferable to blunt but patchily observed prohibitions — but it needs to be effective, and constantly evolve.