Meta has agreed to pay roughly $18 billion to settle lawsuits brought by a bipartisan group of 52 attorneys general from US states, territories, and the District of Columbia over claims that Facebook and Instagram harmed children and teenagers. The money is significant, but the operational changes attached to the deal may carry more weight for the company’s future.
Meta has not admitted wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
As part of the agreement, the company will alter how its platforms function for users under 18 in the participating jurisdictions. That includes a default two-hour daily limit across both apps, restricted access between midnight and 6 AM, muted notifications during school hours, and stronger parental controls.
Users will also have the option to switch to a non-algorithmic feed, and it will hide visible like counts by default.
Related: Fintech Startups To Watch In August
Cosmetic surgery and extreme makeup filters are being restricted as well.
The usage limit can only be turned off with parental permission, though direct messages are exempt from the usage, Night Mode, and School Mode restrictions. Most of these measures are set to stay in place for ten years, but the usage limit and Night Mode initially carry a five-year commitment. Those restrictions will become stricter and extend to the full ten-year term if TikTok and YouTube adopt comparable safeguards.
The company also has not committed to introducing the same package outside the US. When asked whether it plans to extend these safeguards to India and other markets, the company pointed to its blog post announcing the settlement, which did not address global rollout plans.
For India, the distinction matters.
Related: Technewsworld
The government is exploring age-based restrictions on social media platforms, and this settlement offers regulators a reference point for moving beyond content moderation into product design.
The settlement arrives as governments worldwide tighten controls on children’s social media use. Australia now requires covered platforms to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts, and several European countries are weighing age restrictions and stronger age-assurance requirements.
India has yet to settle on a national framework.
Karnataka has proposed restricting social media use for children below 16, and Andhra Pradesh is considering restrictions for those below 13. The Centre has held discussions with social media companies and may favour a graded framework based on age rather than a blanket ban.
Related: Starlink Airtel launch direct cell service in Congo
Legal and industry experts see little justification for offering Indian children a lower baseline of protection merely because regulators have not yet mandated stricter safeguards. “There is no persuasive reason why a safety feature considered necessary for a 15-year-old in California should be unavailable to a 15-year-old in Delhi,” said Mishi Choudhary, founder of the Software Freedom Law Center.
Mayank Arora, a Delhi-based lawyer and partner at Chambers of Bharat Chugh, agreed that children should receive similar protections across markets. If product features warrant usage limits, night-time restrictions, age assurance, and parental controls in one market, platforms should provide a comparable level of protection globally, he said.
Not everyone agrees that identical measures are the right approach. Mohammad Faisal Kawoosa of Techarc believes India should develop safeguards suited to its social and cultural environment. “I wouldn’t say India must have the same measures. But, yes, we must have measures in place to safeguard our children on digital platforms that suit our requirements as well as cultural framework,” Kawoosa said.
