The headline is certainly dramatic: Meta will pay up to US$18 billion to settle American legal claims that Facebook and Instagram harmed children and contributed to social-media addiction.
But the money is not the most important part of this development.
In previous articles, I have argued that Australia’s social-media ban for children under 16, while imperfect, was an essential first step. It challenged the long-standing assumption that the platforms themselves did not need to change and that responsibility for protecting children rested primarily with parents and users.
From the beginning, however, I have also argued that age restrictions alone will not solve the problem. Ultimately, governments must take on the social-media companies themselves and force them to change the addictive design of their platforms.
The Meta settlement is the logical next development in that process. It does not yet deliver the fundamental reform that is needed, but it pushes the debate in the right direction.
Treating the damage rather than its cause
The settlement will direct billions of dollars to American states for youth mental-health services, education programs, phone-free schools and other measures intended to address unhealthy social-media use.
All these services are necessary. But financial compensation primarily treats the consequences of the problem rather than its cause.
If Facebook, Instagram and other platforms continue exposing young people to products designed to maximise engagement, the mental-health damage will continue. Governments will then require even more money for counsellors, treatment programs and public-health initiatives.
We risk creating a system in which the platforms continue generating enormous profits from addictive products while governments use settlement money to repair some of the resulting damage.
That is not a sustainable solution.
The underlying problem is the design of the platforms and their algorithms. They are engineered to keep people scrolling, watching and reacting for as long as possible because user attention generates advertising revenue.
Unless that commercial mechanism changes, the problem will continue growing.
Some meaningful progress
Nevertheless, the settlement does include an important list of reforms.
Subject to court approval, Meta will introduce a two-hour daily limit across Facebook and Instagram for American users aged 13 to 17. It will restrict overnight access, disable notifications during school hours, hide like counts, strengthen age verification and reduce exposure to material involving self-harm and eating disorders. An independent auditor will monitor compliance.
Teenagers will also be offered the option of using a chronological, non-personalised feed, while parents using Meta’s supervision system can make this the default.
These are meaningful steps. Importantly, Meta is accepting that platform design—not simply the behaviour of children and parents—is a legitimate area for government intervention.
However, the algorithmic feed itself is not prohibited. In most cases, teenagers or their parents will still have to choose the safer settings.
This is where the settlement falls short.
People experiencing addiction do not usually volunteer to restrict their access to the product to which they are addicted. They often find ways around restrictions. It is therefore unrealistic to expect teenagers to voluntarily disable the algorithm that has been specifically designed to retain their attention.
Parents cannot be expected to carry this responsibility on their own either. Lasting protection requires safer design to be built into the platforms by default.
See also: Adolescence in the digital age: how phones and social media are shaping a fragile generation
The issue is larger than child safety
As I have argued before, the problem extends well beyond children’s mental health.
The same algorithms that encourage compulsive use also shape the information people receive. They reward emotional reaction, conformity and rapid engagement over reflection, accuracy and expertise.
Algorithmic feedback loops create competing versions of reality. Targeted messaging, coordinated networks and disinformation allow visibility and virality to compete with institutional credibility.
This is increasingly damaging the informational foundations of democracy.
Social media initially offered enormous democratic potential by allowing people to communicate, organise and participate more directly in public debate. But commercial incentives, human psychology and political manipulation have combined to create systems that also amplify division, misinformation and extremism.
The platforms make more money when people remain emotionally engaged. Whether that engagement strengthens society or damages it is secondary to the business model.
That is why reforming social media is not simply about protecting teenagers. It is also about protecting democratic institutions and restoring some integrity to public debate.
Australia helped start the process
There has been considerable criticism of Australia’s under-16 social-media ban, particularly about its enforceability and the possibility that teenagers will circumvent it.
Some of that criticism is justified. No single national measure can solve a problem involving global platforms with enormous technological and financial resources.
Nevertheless, Australia’s initiative has set off a chain of effects internationally. Other countries are following or considering similar action, and governments are paying much greater attention to age verification, addictive platform design and corporate responsibility.
The American settlement adds another element to this growing international pressure.
Legally, it applies only in the United States and Meta has admitted no wrongdoing. It does not establish a binding precedent for Australia or other countries.
Politically, however, it is highly significant. Meta has accepted that governments can impose time limits, restrict engagement features, require independent auditing and demand billions of dollars to address social harm.
The European Union could now play a particularly important role. It has so far been the strongest major jurisdiction in challenging the uncontrolled power of digital platforms. Hopefully, it will use this development to go further—not simply restricting children’s access, but regulating the algorithms and commercial incentives that cause the harm.
Putting people above profits
Neither Australia’s ban nor the American settlement is sufficient. They are elements in what will inevitably be a long struggle to make the world’s most powerful digital companies accountable for the products they have created.
Governments ultimately need to address algorithmic amplification, addictive design and a business model that places engagement and advertising revenue above human welfare, truth and democratic resilience.
The Meta settlement does not yet force that fundamental change. But it is another crack in the defensive wall the social-media companies have built around themselves.
The pressure is accumulating through legislation, litigation, financial penalties and international action.
The ultimate objective must remain clear: these platforms must be redesigned to serve people and society, rather than exploiting human vulnerability to maximise profits.
Paul Budde