Abstract
Meta has agreed to pay up to approximately $17 billion to settle the US lawsuit concerning allegations about the effects of Facebook and Instagram on minors.
The settlement comes as internal documents disclosed during discovery raise questions about what the company knew regarding the risks of compulsive platform use. The company admits no liability but agrees to new obligations concerning teenage users.
Meanwhile, the European Commission is challenging the tech giant over partly similar issues under the Digital Services Act.
The comparison between the United States and Europe therefore raises a broader question: what the rules provide and whether they can be effectively enforced.
Why is paying up to $16.7 billion better for Meta than going to trial?
Meta has chosen to settle one of the most sensitive lawsuits ever brought in the United States concerning the relationship between social networks and minors.
The main settlement provides for payments of up to approximately $16.7 billion over ten years. When the separate settlement with Texas is also taken into account, the total amount announced comes close to 18 billion: according to Meta, approximately 12.7 billion constitutes the guaranteed portion, while the remainder will depend on the adoption of similar safeguards by other major platforms.
The settlement was reached after the trial had already begun. Proceedings had opened on 18 August 2026 before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland), in the lawsuit filed in 2023. The turning point came after Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in June 2026, denied the company’s motion for summary judgment, since she believed that factual issues still remained to be examined at trial, the court required Meta to proceed to trial.
Although Meta’s legal liability technically remains to be established, and the settlement entails no formal admission of wrongdoing, the financial risk had become unsustainable for the company: before the trial, internal calculations estimated that the claims brought by the four lead states could have resulted in theoretical penalties of up to $1.4 trillion.
In addition to its financial impact, the settlement — which has already been approved by the court — requires direct changes to the operation of Facebook and Instagram for underage users:
- Time limits: the introduction of a default daily limit of two hours in total for users under the age of 18, which may be changed with parental authorisation.
- Restricted hours and notifications: access will be blocked between midnight and 6:00 a.m., while push notifications will be disabled during school hours, namely between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Exceptions will apply, and direct messages will not be subject to these restrictions.
- Controls and verification: enhanced parental protection tools, stricter age-assurance measures and annual audits conducted by an independent entity for five years.
To understand why the states were able to secure conditions of this magnitude, however, it is necessary to return to the origins of the lawsuit and examine both the allegations brought against Meta and the evidence that emerged before trial.
What was Meta accused of in relation to Facebook and Instagram?
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey accused Meta of designing certain Facebook and Instagram features with the specific intention of encouraging compulsive use by minors. The features challenged in the original 2023 lawsuit included continuous page refreshing (infinite scroll) automatic video playback, (autoplay), relentless notifications, “likes”, recommendation algorithms and filters that alter users’ physical appearance.
The plaintiffs alleged that Meta was fully aware of the risks. During discovery, documents and communications had emerged in which employees openly discussed the relationship between Instagram, teenagers and compulsive use. According to the states, this internal awareness was fundamentally at odds with the public assurances given concerning the safety of the platforms.
Only some of these allegations, however, reached the threshold of trial. In her order of 15 October 2024, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers applied Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, the federal provision under which no provider of an interactive computer service may be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by third parties.
By virtue of this legal “shield”, the judge held that the claims concerning the manner in which Meta selects and distributes content created by other users were inadmissible, thereby removing the significant issue of recommendation algorithms from the trial.
Despite this partial victory for Meta, crucial claims remained concerning appearance-altering beauty filters, the alleged ineffectiveness of tools designed to limit time spent on the apps and the problems associated with the use of multiple accounts.
This was compounded by another particularly sensitive issue: the handling of the personal data of children under the age of 13. The states alleged that Meta had systematically collected such data in breach of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the federal law protecting children’s privacy online.
Although the scope of the trial had narrowed compared with the sweeping initial allegations, the surviving claims withstood all of Meta’s attempts to have the case dismissed. This continued until June 2026 when, just a few weeks before the trial was due to begin, the company’s position became even more difficult.
What risks did meta avoid by settling the lawsuit?
In addition to the billions sought by the states, Meta faced the weight of the documents disclosed during discovery, namely the stage of US proceedings in which the parties must exchange relevant documents and evidence. A number of highly problematic internal communications had come to light during the investigation.
Among the most sensitive pieces of evidence cited in Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’s order of 29 June 2026 were the following:
- Employee communications: in an internal message, an employee wrote that “some of our users are addicted to our products”, questioning whether the objective of constantly increasing usage time was encouraging the creation of features that were “more addictive”.
- Internal studies: a 2019 presentation, the Instagram Teen Well-Being Study, had already reported that “app addiction is common on IG”.
- Executive testimony: during sworn testimony, Mark Zuckerberg was asked whether Meta knew that “problematic use” represented a genuine issue for a significant proportion of users. His answer was simply: “Yes.”
- Data on night-time use: court records showed that millions of teenagers used Meta’s platforms every week between midnight and 4:00 a.m.
These materials were plainly at odds with the company’s public position. In 2021, appearing before the US Congress, Instagram head Adam Mosseri had stated: “I don’t believe the research suggests that our products are addictive.” That same year, Antigone Davis, then Facebook’s global head of safety, had reiterated: “I don’t agree with the characterisation of our products as addictive.”
Taken individually, these elements did not amount to an automatic finding of liability. In her ruling of 29 June 2026, however, the judge held that there was sufficient evidence for the case against Meta to proceed to trial, leaving the trial itself to determine what the company actually knew and whether it had made misleading statements.
This is precisely what the settlement allowed Meta to avoid: a judgment delivered at the conclusion of a public trial centred on the examination of confidential documents, uncomfortable testimony and statements made by the company’s senior executives.
While Meta is bringing the US litigation to an end, proceedings before the European Commission concerning the same issues remain ongoing.
What about Europe? Who is responsible for enforcing the rules against Meta?
The US case also raises a fundamental question for European users: does our legal system contain rules capable of protecting minors from mechanisms of this kind?
The answer is yes. The Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes specific obligations on major platforms to prevent systemic risks affecting younger age groups. As Facebook and Instagram are classified as “very large online platforms” (VLOPs), primary responsibility for enforcing these rules lies directly with the European Commission.
In Brussels, the Commission is in fact pursuing allegations closely resembling those raised in the United States.
On 29 April 2026, the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that Facebook and Instagram had failed to adopt adequate measures to prevent access by children under the age of 13.
On 10 July 2026, the Commission notified Meta of an even more serious finding, formally alleging that the company had breached the DSA because of a design conceived to create addiction. The investigation targets the same features at the heart of the US trial: infinite scroll, autoplay, frequent push notifications and personalised recommendation systems.
In Europe, administrative penalties may prove even more severe than those imposed in the United States: where an infringement is established, Article 74 of the DSA authorises the Commission to impose fines of up to 6% of the company’s annual worldwide turnover under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065.
The timing on both sides of the Atlantic is striking. The European allegations took shape precisely as Meta was preparing to appear in court in the United States, culminating in the turning point of 26 August 2026, when the $18 billion US settlement was announced.
Although it is not possible to demonstrate a direct connection between the US settlement and an intention to pre-empt severe European penalties, the convergence of the authorities’ actions invites reflection: for a multinational company, could early compliance serve to establish a US industry standard before the proceedings culminate in binding EU decisions?
Reviewed by: Debora Teruggia
Publication date: 24 September 2026
© Canella Camaiora S.t.A. S.r.l. - All rights reserved.
Textual reproduction of the article is permitted, even for commercial purposes, within the limit of 15% of its entirety, provided that the source is clearly indicated. In the case of online reproduction, a link to the original article must be included. Unauthorised reproduction or paraphrasing without indication of source will be prosecuted.
Arlo Canella
Managing Partner dello studio legale Canella Camaiora, iscritto all’Ordine degli Avvocati di Milano, appassionato di Branding, Comunicazione e Design.