Meta’s Teen Safety Settlement Is a Step Forward—but Not a Lasting Solution

Twenty-nine state attorneys general appeared in an Oakland, California, court this month seeking approximately $200 billion from Meta over allegations that its platforms contributed to teen addiction. The case concluded in its second week with a proposed settlement requiring Meta to pay up to $17 billion over 10 years and make several product changes, including overnight access restrictions from midnight to 6 a.m., a two-hour daily usage limit, and an optional chronological feed.

Although these measures could help protect young users, the settlement gives Meta too many opportunities to avoid making meaningful and permanent changes to its products. The agreement is time-limited, relies heavily on Meta’s own definitions of key terms, and does not require the company to provide sufficiently detailed public disclosures.

An Independent Auditor Is a Significant First Step

The settlement is especially notable because it requires an independent auditor to oversee Meta’s compliance. This marks the first time an outside party has been formally assigned a role in evaluating the company’s product design and safety practices.

Independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission, are an established—although imperfect—way to protect the public interest. Social media platforms now play a role in the lives of children and families that is comparable to the influence once held by the broadcasting and communications industries regulated by the FCC.

Under the agreement, independent auditors will have access to Meta’s internal data and engineers. They must report annually on whether Meta is meeting its obligations and publish a summary of each report.

Jonathan Bellack is the author of Platformism, a free weekly newsletter advocating democratic governance of online platforms. He has worked in the internet industry for four decades, including 15 years as a senior product leader for advertising and online safety at Google. He is also affiliated with the Applied Social Media Lab at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. Jonathan holds a BA from Yale University and an MBA from New York University’s Stern School of Business.

Why the Meta Settlement May Fall Short

On the surface, the settlement is good news. A closer look, however, shows that the independent auditor’s authority may be too limited. The agreement often restates Meta’s existing business practices instead of establishing new standards based on the public interest.

For example, an age-appropriate experience is defined as content presented through Meta’s existing “13+” content settings. Adverse experiences are defined as conduct that violates Meta’s community standards. Age-verification data must be protected using Meta’s “highest data privacy and security standards.”

These definitions give Meta considerable flexibility. The company could comply with the contract’s wording while making few substantive changes to the way its platforms affect teenagers.

Another concern is the limited information that will be made public. The auditor’s report must describe Meta’s performance and indicate whether the company has adopted, or agreed to adopt, the auditor’s recommendations. However, Meta can withhold information it considers private, proprietary or confidential.

This restriction is troubling because one of the central issues in the case involved Meta’s handling and internal embedding of potentially harmful data. Meaningful oversight requires independent researchers, policymakers and the public to have enough information to evaluate whether the company is actually improving teen safety.

This limited disclosure also contrasts with Meta’s public announcement of an “independent social media research foundation” through which the company says it will share consented user data to advance research on teen well-being. No comparable provision appears to be included in the proposed settlement.

The independent auditor requirement will also expire after at least five years, while the settlement itself ends after 10 years. That timeline could create an incentive for Meta to delay major changes until oversight ends instead of adopting permanent improvements to its products and policies.

Chronological Feeds and Teen Social Media Use

The settlement requires Meta to give teenagers the option to select a less personalized “home” feed. Because this type of feed is less dependent on personalization, it may be less addictive than Meta’s algorithmically curated feed. However, the chronological option will not be the default, meaning teens can continue using the personalized experience unless they actively change their settings.

Research suggests that many people dislike chronological feeds, which could limit the real-world impact of this requirement. Giving users a choice is valuable, but an optional setting is unlikely to transform behavior on its own.

The settlement also assumes that a time-series feed is the best alternative to Meta’s personalized recommendations. That assumption deserves more scrutiny. Carefully designed algorithms that reduce harmful content and misinformation while respecting user preferences could potentially support better mental health outcomes than a purely chronological feed.

Long-term research into user-centered algorithms is needed before policymakers can determine which feed designs best protect teenagers.

Why Permanent Social Media Regulation Is Needed

Independent and rigorous auditing standards are also urgently needed for the privacy and security of online identity data. It is risky to rely on the same company involved in the Cambridge Analytica scandal to evaluate its own data-protection practices.

Lawmakers should act now to create permanent regulatory structures for social media platforms. New federal legislation could establish strong, independent auditors with authority to inspect platform systems, access relevant data, investigate safety risks and publish detailed findings.

Effective regulatory oversight could be funded through annual fees based on the size and social impact of major technology companies.

Permanent regulators could move beyond one-time agreements focused on individual Meta features. They could develop continuing research, technical expertise and safety standards that apply across the internet.

A comprehensive approach to social media regulation should address more than child-safety claims involving a single platform. It should establish consistent standards for algorithmic recommendations, privacy, identity verification, transparency and user control.

There is a particular need for the public to have more insight into—and control over—the way social media feeds are built. Users should be able to understand why they see particular posts, adjust recommendation systems and choose safer alternatives without navigating confusing settings.

The Meta settlement should serve as a baseline, not a high-water mark, for internet-platform regulation. This case and the many others pending in state and federal courts can generate political attention and encourage important concessions. They cannot, however, replace the permanent rules and institutions that only Congress and state legislatures can create.

Editor’s note: This opinion article was co-published in Jonathan Bellack’s free weekly newsletter, Platformism, which advocates for greater democracy in online life.

Opinion on Live Science provides insight into important scientific issues affecting people and the world, with analysis from experts and leading researchers.