Meta’s landmark settlement with nearly all US states over allegations that its platforms harmed teenagers could have consequences far beyond the United States, giving governments around the world another reason to push social media companies to do more to protect children online. The settlement, worth up to $18 billion, comes as governments grapple with growing concerns over how platforms such as Facebook and Instagram affect young users, from exposure to harmful content to features designed to keep people engaged for longer.
So, what does the Meta settlement mean for the wider fight over social media and children?
At the heart of the debate is a question being asked by regulators across countries. If social media companies have the technology to make their platforms safer for children, why aren’t they using it more aggressively?
Where do governments stand across the world?
Australian officials have pointed to Meta’s move in the US to restrict teenagers’ use of social media as evidence that companies have the tools to introduce stronger protections. Australian Communications Minister Anika Wells told Reuters that social media companies “have the tools at their disposal to protect young people from their addictive features but have chosen not to use them”.
The country has already taken one of the toughest approaches in the world. Late last year, it introduced a world-first ban preventing children under 16 from using social media platforms.
The Philippines is also watching the developments closely. A government official said Meta had pledged to strengthen protections for young users in the country, suggesting that the pressure on major platforms is spreading beyond the US and Australia.
In South Korea, the media regulator said some of Meta’s measures should be applied to young users worldwide, rather than just in specific markets.
Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum said the government needed to review its potential impact for Mexico.
The European Commission said it was waiting for Meta to present changes to limit the addictive designs of its social networks.
Why the road may not be that easy
Enforcement of restrictions, however, has been patchy so far.
Early evidence suggests the law has been undermined by weak age-verification systems, with multiple studies, including from Australia’s internet regulator, showing 80% of minors were still on social media months after the ban took effect in December, Reuters reported. That prompted lawmakers to double the maximum fine and increase regulatory powers.
In Asia, countries including China, South Korea, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are also seeking tighter oversight of social media as well as curbs, including to block alleged scams, and in particular to protect children.
The Meta settlement could therefore become part of a broader global shift. Governments are increasingly moving away from simply asking social media companies to police themselves and towards demanding concrete measures to limit children’s exposure to harmful or addictive features.
For Meta and other major platforms, the challenge is no longer confined to one country’s regulations. As more governments examine the impact of social media on children, measures adopted in one market could create pressure for stronger protections elsewhere.
(With agency inputs)