Meta is facing some of the biggest changes to Instagram and Facebook in the history of the platforms after agreeing to a landmark settlement over allegations that its products have harmed children and teenagers.
The company has agreed to pay up to US$17.1 billion to settle claims brought by 47 US states and territories, while introducing sweeping new restrictions designed to change the way young people use Instagram and Facebook.
The settlement follows a federal trial in California in which states accused Meta of deliberately designing its platforms to keep children and teenagers engaged, despite concerns about the impact of social media on their mental health.
Meta hasn’t admitted wrongdoing and continues to argue that it has invested heavily in protecting young users. But the agreement represents a major shift in the way the company will operate its platforms, with many of the new protections expected to remain in place for at least 10 years.
At the centre of the dispute is a question that’s become increasingly difficult for the technology industry to avoid: how much responsibility should social media companies take for the mental health of young people using their products?
Under the new agreement, teenagers will face a default two-hour daily limit on Instagram and Facebook. Once that limit is reached, they won’t be able to continue using the apps unless a verified parent overrides the restriction.
The platforms will also be blocked for teenagers between midnight and 6am, while notifications will be switched off by default during school hours. Features such as public “like” counts will also be hidden from young users, reducing some of the social comparison that critics argue can contribute to anxiety and pressure among teenagers.
Meta will also introduce stronger age-assurance technology to identify users who are under 18, while people under 13 are not supposed to have accounts on the platforms.
Other measures include stronger parental controls, restrictions around potentially harmful content and changes to the way young users can interact with adults they don’t know.
The changes are significant because many of the protections will no longer depend on teenagers or their parents actively turning them on.
That matters because one of the more revealing moments in the court proceedings came just days before the settlement, when Instagram head Adam Mosseri was questioned about the platform’s “Take a Break” feature.
The feature encourages users to stop using Instagram after spending a set amount of time on the app. Mosseri acknowledged that only a small percentage of teenagers were using it before Instagram made it a default setting in 2024.
That exchange goes to the heart of the case.
For years, social media companies have provided parents and young people with tools to manage screen time, notifications and content. But critics have argued that these tools don’t go far enough when the underlying design of the platforms is built around keeping people engaged.
The legal cases have increasingly focused on that design.
Algorithms that continually recommend content, notifications designed to bring people back to the app, visible measures of popularity and endless scrolling have all come under scrutiny.
The argument isn’t that every teenager who uses Instagram will develop a mental health problem. It’s that platforms designed to maximise engagement can have a different impact on young people whose brains and social identities are still developing.
That argument has now gained considerable weight in US courts.
Earlier this month, a New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay US$567 million to address the impact of Facebook and Instagram on children’s mental health, following an earlier US$375 million penalty. The judge described Meta’s platforms as a significant contributing factor to a youth mental health crisis in the state.
The new settlement is much broader.
It covers almost the entire United States and could ultimately affect the way other technology companies operate their platforms. The agreement is also structured to encourage competitors including TikTok and YouTube to introduce similar protections.
If those companies adopt comparable measures, Meta’s restrictions could become even tougher, including longer overnight blocks and shorter daily usage limits.
For Meta, the financial penalty is enormous, but the changes to its products could prove more important.
The company has spent years building its business around keeping people engaged with its platforms. More time on Instagram and Facebook generally means more opportunities to show advertising.
Now, for its youngest users, the company is being forced to put limits around that model.
The settlement also includes funding for youth online safety initiatives and independent research into how young people use social media. That could provide researchers with more information about the relationship between platform design, online behaviour and youth wellbeing.
Meta has framed the settlement as an opportunity to establish consistent standards across the industry, calling on competitors to introduce similar measures.
That’s important because one of the problems facing parents is that limiting one platform doesn’t necessarily mean limiting social media.
If a teenager is restricted on Instagram, they can move to TikTok. If TikTok introduces restrictions, there’s YouTube, Snapchat or another platform waiting.
The settlement therefore has the potential to become something bigger than a change to Facebook and Instagram.
It could mark the beginning of a new approach to social media, where protecting young people’s mental health becomes part of the basic design of the product rather than an optional safety feature buried in the settings menu.
The case also reflects a growing realisation among governments and courts that telling parents to simply take away their children’s phones may not be enough. And increasingly, the companies that build these systems are being asked to take responsibility for the consequences.
Meta’s settlement still needs court approval, and the company continues to face other lawsuits over the impact of its platforms on young people.
For years, the question was how much time young people should spend on social media.
Now the question being asked in courtrooms is a much bigger one: what responsibility does social media have for the wellbeing of the young people it is designed to keep coming back?
For Meta, the answer is about to be built directly into Instagram and Facebook.
Follow Adrian Drayton on his Substack – The Long Conversation – where he writes about faith, culture and media and the questions shaping our common life.
