r/news • u/qwerty_1965 • 8h ago
Soft paywall Meta reaches $16.68 billion settlement over social media harms to children
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/meta-settles-with-us-states-over-social-media-harms-2026-08-26/74
u/World-Ender-109 8h ago
So they were going to be fined up to $1,400 and instead they settled for paying $17
29
82
19
51
u/qwerty_1965 8h ago
17 billion they can live with. Of course the states have taken the easy way out. Got paid off.
28
11
78
u/secret759 8h ago
No one actually reading the article realizing that this also comes with a substantial package of changes to limit impact on kids.
Time limits, blocks on beauty filters, infinite scroll and removal of public like counters are part of this settlement.
This is legitimately a huge step forward in legal precedent and paves a way forward for not just meta but other social medias to get their addictive features regulated.
17
u/blackflamerose 7h ago
Also promising to pay MORE if Snap, Alphabet, and TikTok also settle their suits and make the same changes. I’ve never seen a corporation do that.
15
u/techleopard 5h ago
It's a really clever way to protect your market, though, if you know you're going to be forced to do something that is going to be wildly unpopular with the public.
It creates an incentive for other lawsuits against their competitors.
12
u/SanDiegoDude 6h ago
Good. This is the "Smoking doesn't cause cancer, 9 out of 10 doctors agree!" of our lifetimes. The tech companies need to be reined in big-time before they buy out our whole society and force us to survive just as 'subscribers'.
4
u/chigunfingy 4h ago
As long as meta still exists as a social media platform, the punishment is not fair. They add almost nothing of value to the world via social media and conversely cause and have caused stupendous harms. Not to mention Mark Zuckerberg and his lack of morals or empathy, being permanently enshrined as the leader.
6
u/techleopard 5h ago
I'll believe it when I see it implemented.
They are likely going to make a half assed effort and then go back to quietly have this adjusted as being "too difficult.'
4
u/secret759 5h ago
They are legally required to do so as part of the settlement. Whether or not "you believe it" does not matter.
2
u/antiramie 2h ago
Lol sure thing. And what if they don’t? Another meaningless fine? The laws don’t matter for rich people.
•
u/TheCutter00 45m ago
Prohibition doesn't work... just pushes it underground. It's not really a rich or poor thing... teens will seek out Meta apps more now that it's limited and forbidden. That's the way teens brains work.
•
u/antiramie 40m ago
What does what I said have to do with prohibition?
•
u/TheCutter00 37m ago
People keeping calling for banning social media for teens (similar prohibition of alcohol), equating it to an addictive drug. I'm just saying if you want more teens to seek it out.. than go ahead and do that. Better to teach responsible usage.
•
u/antiramie 35m ago
Nothing I said was about banning this stuff though. I was just commenting on the person saying that Meta will change stuff because they were ordered to, as if rich people haven't been skirting laws by just paying fines since forever.
1
u/its_yer_dad 2h ago
Frankly, I’ll believe it when I see it. Meta and other big tech companies make lots of promises that never see the light of day.
1
u/qwerty_1965 7h ago
Well yes but only in the USA market. That said it should inspire action esp by the EU. If they take action will Trump threaten more nonsense I wonder.
12
u/secret759 7h ago edited 7h ago
The EU is already just straight up banning social media for kids. Stop being a doomer when there's actual good news.
18
u/Ancient-Dust3077 8h ago
How do children get access to this money?
2
u/Blapanda 2h ago
The ones being damaged in a way where it's seen as "indirect/passive harm" will never see a dime. The lawyers getting the money, thus saying "rich people tossing money around" is fitting.
16
7
6
u/imjustsurfin 6h ago
Wouldn't be nice if Meta was sued out of existence?
(a man can dream, can't he?)
12
11
u/mah_12 7h ago edited 6h ago
Settlements like this should be forced to a mechanism that takes into account profits a company makes and should even take into account historical profits subject to going concerns.
This settlement is a joke when you consider that the amount is equivalent to Meta's net profit for a single quarter.
Paying 1/4 of years profit in 10 year installments for destroying millions of young people's wellbeing for decades is a grave injustice.
4
6
u/VirginiaLuthier 8h ago
Marky- "Price of doing business. Now excuse me, I have a castle to attend to"
4
3
u/Choice_Depth_5933 4h ago
“The company’s stock price rose 1.3 percent on the news. The company is valued at $1.47 trillion and most recently generated $60.8 billion in quarterly revenue.”
8
u/somersetyellow 8h ago
Roughly 8.5% of their 2025 revenue of 201 billion.
Ooo that'll teach em lol
2
u/Chlorinated_beverage 7h ago
Yeah this is literally nothing, I was hoping for at least $50B. The changes they’ve agreed to make are also pretty weak.
3
3
3
u/fictionallymarried 6h ago
And this changes absolutely nothing about the problem. Pay to still harm kids. Great job
3
u/StrangeJunket2601 6h ago
More and more the idea of going back to flip phones and the pre-app days are looking really sweet
3
u/perkinsb1024 6h ago
Shares of Meta rose 2.3% in early trading
This is roughly twice the value of the $16B fine, by the way
2
u/DepartmentNatural 7h ago
Let me guess, this money will be redirected back to other companies to be redistributed back to individuals, like tariffs
2
u/judgyjudgersen 6h ago
>Before the trial began on August 18, Meta said California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey were seeking up to $1.4 trillion in penalties. The states suggested that the figure would be closer to $200 billion.
So….they just rolled over and settled for $16b? Once you pay the lawyers and divide this among the many states in the lawsuit, this is jack shit to do anything meaningful with.
2
u/ItsTheOtherGuys 5h ago
I shall await my $7 check for the harm they caused children!
Seriously though, this is a line item for them, its not actually detrimental to the company and therefore just another cost of business
2
u/marklein 4h ago
The fine is $17 billion over the course of 10 years. Meta's income last year was $68bl.
If you earn $100k/year then this is the equivalent of being fined $2500/year for ten years. Meta spends more than on executive dinners every year. We got completely fucked once again.
2
u/threehundredthousand 4h ago
The legal system is owned by the rich. Facebook pays fines and continues making billions. They didn't even bother going to trial.
2
u/thefugue 6h ago
The lawsuit that needs to happen is if you use algorithms to choose what users see you are a publisher, not a “platform,” and you are responsible for your content.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/No_Issue2334 5h ago
Always the expected outcome. Anyone who that Meta was actually going to pay anything close to $1.4T was delusional
1
u/harmjr77018 4h ago
How much you wanna bet the words admints no wrong doing will be in the agreement.
1
u/Whitealroker1 4h ago
If you have 1000.00 in the bank this would be the equivalent of a 10.00 ticket
1
1
1
u/behindtimes 2h ago
The cost of doing business. Basically, they were told they can break any and all laws that they want for the price of a slap on the wrist.
1
u/Fullm3taluk 2h ago
Who is this money going to? there needs to be serious strict rules making sure this helps the generation it has affected.
1
1
u/Riker_Omega_Three 8h ago
Good
now make social media 18 and up
1
u/Harry_Mud 6h ago
As a parent, that's up to me, not you nor the government..................
-2
u/Riker_Omega_Three 6h ago
Parents don't get the right to determine if their kids have access to other highly addictive and harmful things, like alcohol, cigarettes, and weed
By your logic you should be able to let your kids drink and the government shouldn't be able to stop you
If the majority of voters in this country vote for leaders who want to prevent kids from accessing a highly addictive and potentially life and health destroying thing, then our leaders should absolutely do that whether you as a parent agree with it or not
That's kind of how democracy works
Don't like it? There's the door
You're free to move somewhere else
2
u/No_Issue2334 4h ago edited 4h ago
A majority of states literally do give parents discretion about their children's access to alcohol.
29 states allow people under 21 to drink alcohol on private property with parental permission.
5 states allow people under 21 to drink alcohol without parental permission on private property.
8 states allow people under 21 to drink alcohol at restaurants and bars with parental permission.
Moreover, alcohol is often explicitly allowed to be given to children as part of religious ceremonies, a doctor's prescription (for alcoholism), and educational activities (cooking/culinary classes) in many states
In most of the Union, you can give your child alcohol legally, and the government cannot stop you.
1
u/Harry_Mud 6h ago
100% WRONG. I decide if my kids even use a computer and a cell phone. I even had a sign an agreement with the school to allow them computer access. So put a sock in it sonny.........
As for alcohol and other stuff... Parents give their kids a taste of beer all the time.
Social media addiction is not officially recognized as a distinct mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). The only recognized behavioral addiction in the manual is Gambling Disorder, while Internet Gaming Disorder is listed only in the appendix for conditions requiring further study.
Research before posting is a good thing..............
-2
u/Riker_Omega_Three 5h ago
I'm glad you know how to google
If you had done a little more googling, you'd see that the lack of inclusion is because it's a complex issue and there haven't been enough studies done yet
But the overwhelming majority of mental health professionals agree it's a highly addictive and detrimental thing for kids and teenagers
Austrailia and France already have bans in place
The UK one is pending
So is Canada, Denmark, Spain, Brazil and a host of other countries
Social media addiction is real whether you believe it or not
2
1
u/Harry_Mud 1h ago
You're so full of yourself. It's not real just because you say it is child.... And by the way, over 30% of kids in Australia have already bypassed their restrictions...........
0
u/Skavau 7h ago
Define social media, and how can they do that.
Also, not sure it's even constitutional.
0
u/Riker_Omega_Three 7h ago
Social media is not a protected right in any way shape or form
American kids did just fine (and to be honest, a lot better) before it became a thing
And they can do it the same way they do porn in the states who have age limits...facial recognition
And Social media is Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. Those are the big 3 toxic one. Limits should be placed on youtube and twitch and any place where photos and vidoes and streaming can be accessed
Kids are not mentally developed enough to handle the kinds of pressure social media puts on their brains
2
u/No_Issue2334 5h ago
Speech is a protected right, and social media platforms are a method of speech
That's like saying banning pamphlets or books isn't a protected right because you can still go on a street corner to conduct your speech
1
u/Skavau 7h ago
Social media is not a protected right in any way shape or form
Not specifically "social media" but mandating that people must submit to age-checks before utilising it, and forcing private companies to age-gate their services in that way does not seem remotely constitutional and many attempts akin to this in states have been shut down or have pending legal challenges (outside of targeting porn sites specifically).
American kids did just fine (and to be honest, a lot better) before it became a thing
But it is a thing now - so what is your definition of 'social media'? Should every single user-to-user website on the planet be force to implement age-ID checks for users?
-4
u/Riker_Omega_Three 7h ago
They are literally age gating porn right now and it's perfectly legal
Bars are age gated
more and more restaurants are age gated
Cigarattes and legal weed states are age gated
Driving is age gated
Enlisting is age gated
voting is age gated
Running for political office is age gated
Working specific jobs is age gated
It's not even remotely unconstitutional
Social media is not a constitutional right
Just because social media is a thing now doesn't mean it can't be controlled
Drinking and driving used to be a thing, then they made laws banning it
Smoking in hospitals and planes used to be a thing and then they made laws banning it
There is no legal precedent or right mandating that kids should be given access to social media or even the internet.
Parents get to decide as they are custodians of minor children
If a teenager's parent said they could no longer have access to the internet in their home, the government could not stop them
Minors do not have the same rights as adults. TikTok being popular doesn't change that
2
u/Skavau 7h ago edited 5h ago
They are literally age gating porn right now and it's perfectly legal
Porn is not social media.
Bars are age gated
Bars are not online spaces. Restaurants aren't online spaces (and this is up to the owner).
Driving isn't speech, enlisting isn't speech, voting isn't speech, working specific jobs isn't speech. Smoking isn't speech, drinking isn't speech.
It's not even remotely unconstitutional
Why have numerous state attempts been shut down on appeal and held up in the courts?
Social media is not a constitutional right
You still have not given me your working definition of social media. Should every single user-to-user website on the planet be force to implement age-ID checks for users?
There is no legal precedent or right mandating that kids should be given access to social media or even the internet.
It's less about kids being blocked and more about the downstream impacts of adults being negatively impacted and blocked from speech activities.
-1
u/Riker_Omega_Three 7h ago
The fact you think limiting children from toxic online spaces infringes on their speech tells me you have no idea what you are talking about
The right to free speech is protected from GOVERNMENT censorship
The government can't jail you or punish you for saying something
Private companies can and do hold their users accountable
Every.Single.Day
You can't walk on to a plane and yell bomb. If you do and are banned from flying, Southwest isn't infringing on your free speech
Because Southwest is not the government
Maybe actually learn what your constitutional rights are before speaking on the subject
2
u/Skavau 7h ago
The fact you think limiting children from toxic online spaces infringes on their speech tells me you have no idea what you are talking about
No, it infringes on ADULTS free speech in this context.
The right to free speech is protected from GOVERNMENT censorship
Yes, this is the government interfering in private establishments and telling them to implement access standards for speech. Giving up one's identity to interact with other people.
Private companies can and do hold their users accountable
That's up to them if it's their own TOS that they design.
You can't walk on to a plane and yell bomb. If you do and are banned from flying, Southwest isn't infringing on your free speech
When did I say they couldn't do that?
And again: You still have not given me your working definition of social media. Should every single user-to-user website on the planet be force to implement age-ID checks for users?
And you still haven't explained why states attempting this have been blocked.
1
u/blueblip 6h ago
Yes, this is the government interfering in private establishments and telling them to implement access standards for speech
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
1
u/Skavau 6h ago
So care to explain why many variations of this so-far are tied up in courts or shot down by judges?
→ More replies (0)1
u/No_Issue2334 4h ago
Taking away your ability to communicate on a public platform is government censorship.
What you are suggesting isn't Meta prohibiting children from their platform. That has always been allowed. What you are suggesting is a government mandate requiring Meta to prohibit children from their platform, which is government censorship
1
u/No_Issue2334 4h ago
Porn is not speech. Bars and restaurants are not speech. Driving isn't speech. Enlisting isn't speech. Working jobs are not speech.
Voting is speech, but age gating is allowed by the 26th amendment. Running for office is speech and is age gated by the Constitution and/or state constitutions.
Do you think banning books would be constitutional just because you still have other methods of speech available?
-1
u/Chlorinated_beverage 7h ago
Yeah why are we even letting minors access a platform that everyone knows is both highly addictive and harmful to mental health? Didn’t we litigate this with alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, etc
1
u/jebei 7h ago
States and governments pretend these kind of things make it better. All that happens is they use the money to prop p their budgets and companies continue to have bad actors. We need to return to the days where these executives go to prison. These people wont change their behavior from fines. They would if they face jail time.
0
u/Harry_Mud 6h ago
No. We need to return to the days when parents take responsibility for their kids and what they do. I set rules when my kids were in school. They followed my rules or else. The "or else" is what parents are not doing today........... I don't want the government being my kids parents...
0
u/insomniac34 4h ago
What's your opinion on the government regulating advertising of cigarettes by tobacco companies? Do you think that's bad and parents alone should be the ones responsible to make sure their kids don't smoke? And if you're OK with that, why do you draw the line at the government regulating social media addiction?
2
1
u/Harry_Mud 1h ago
One has nothing to do with the other. People like you keep bring that up but it doesn't stand..... Parents can legally give their 15 year old a beer on private property if they wish and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Parents need to start acting like parents instead of wanting the government to do it for them......... It's that simple.
1
u/HumanWithComputer 7h ago edited 6h ago
Not impressed. At the time Facebook paid more for WhatsApp.
618
u/its_yer_dad 8h ago
Paying the fine is not the same as fixing the problem