OAKLAND, California — Meta Platforms has agreed to pay up to $18 billion and impose major new restrictions on teenage use of Facebook and Instagram to resolve sweeping U.S. lawsuits accusing the company of designing its social media platforms to be addictive and harmful to children.
The proposed settlement, announced Wednesday, would end a landmark federal trial in Oakland, California, where state attorneys general accused Meta of misleading the public about the safety of its products while prioritizing engagement and advertising revenue over the well-being of younger users.
The deal requires court approval. If approved, Meta would make payments over 10 years and adopt new youth-safety measures, including daily time restrictions, overnight blocks, reduced push notifications during school hours, and enhanced age-verification systems.
The settlement would cover nearly all U.S. states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. It represents one of the largest corporate settlements ever involving claims over the effects of social media on children.
Meta denied the allegations and did not admit liability.
“The settlement does not require Meta to abandon personalized recommendations or targeted advertising,” Reuters reported, preserving business practices that have been central to the company’s advertising-driven model.
Still, the agreement marks a major shift in the legal and political pressure on technology companies. It could set up a new standard for how social media platforms are expected to design products for children and teenagers.
What Meta agreed to pay
Meta said it would pay approximately $18 billion over a decade. However, the structure of that figure is more complicated than the headline number suggests.
The core multistate settlement includes maximum payments of about $17.7 billion to 48 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands, Reuters reported.
California could receive about $2.2 billion, while New York and Texas could each receive more than $1 billion under the broader arrangements described by Reuters.
Other reporting put the multistate portion at lower levels. NBC News said a court filing showed Meta agreed to pay up to $16.68 billion to resolve claims brought by a group of 29 states.
CNBC reported that Meta had agreed to $16.7 billion for the multistate settlement, while Texas separately reached an approximately $1 billion agreement with the company.
The difference between the various figures reflects both separate state arrangements and conditional payments built into the deal.
Meta said about 70% of the $18 billion, or roughly $12.7 billion, would be paid to participating states over 10 years. The remaining 30%, about $5.3 billion, would be released only if TikTok and Google’s YouTube meet specific conditions, according to Meta’s description of the agreement.
Those conditions include adoption of similar youth-protection measures and payments by Meta’s competitors equal to the remaining amount.
That unusual structure means the maximum $18 billion amount may not be paid in full unless Meta’s major rivals take comparable steps.
Meta also said it expects to record approximately $10 billion in legal expense during the third quarter of 2026 tied to the agreement.
New rules for teenage users
The settlement would require Meta to change how Facebook and Instagram operate for teenage users.
Among the most significant provisions is a daily time limit for teenagers. Meta agreed to establish a two-hour daily cap on Facebook and Instagram use for teens, according to Reuters.
The company also agreed to block teen use of the platforms from midnight to 6 a.m. unless a parent gives consent.
The proposed restrictions would also limit push notifications during school hours, generally from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The notification rule is intended to reduce interruptions during class and make it harder for the platforms to draw students back into their feeds throughout the school day.
Meta will also be required to improve age-assurance measures intended to prevent younger children from accessing age-restricted content or misrepresenting their age to create accounts.
The settlement further calls for new tools to help parents and guardians manage their children’s online activity.
The changes strike at some of the mechanisms that critics say can increase time spent on social media: continuous notifications, algorithmic recommendations, late-night scrolling and frictionless access for younger users.
However, Meta will not be required to stop using personalized recommendations or targeted advertising.
That limitation matters because recommendation systems are a core part of the company’s business. They determine what users see in Facebook and Instagram feeds and help keep people engaged for longer periods, generating more advertising opportunities.
The allegations against Meta
The lawsuits were brought by a coalition of state attorneys general led by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey.
They accused Meta of designing Facebook and Instagram to encourage compulsive use among children and teenagers while concealing evidence of potential mental health harms.
The states argued that Meta’s products used features such as endless scrolling, recommendation algorithms, notifications, and social feedback mechanisms to keep young users engaged.
They alleged that the company knew, or should have known, that excessive social media use could contribute to anxiety, depression, body-image concerns, sleep disruption and other mental health problems among younger users.
The cases were consolidated in federal court in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
Four states, California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, had been expected to pursue nearly $200 billion in civil penalties in the trial.
The scale of the claims reflected the seriousness with which state officials viewed the allegations. Rather than treating the case as a narrow consumer-protection dispute, the attorneys general framed it as a public-health issue involving millions of young people.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the settlement would address several central issues in the litigation and require significant changes intended to improve children’s safety online.
Meta has denied that it is liable for the alleged harms.
In the court filing described by NBC News, the company “denies the allegations against it and that it has any liability to the Plaintiffs.”
Why the settlement matters
The agreement is likely to influence other lawsuits and regulatory efforts involving social media companies.
Families, school districts, state governments and attorneys general have filed numerous cases against technology companies in recent years, alleging that social media platforms contribute to youth mental health problems and are designed to maximize engagement at the expense of safety.
The Meta settlement does not resolve every lawsuit against the company. But it could provide a model for how governments seek changes from large platforms.
Until now, much of the policy debate has focused on proposed laws that could require parental consent, prohibit algorithmic recommendations for minors or set age-verification standards.
The Meta agreement would accomplish some of those goals through litigation rather than legislation.
It also raises pressure on competing platforms.
Under the deal’s terms, part of the settlement payment is tied to whether TikTok and YouTube adopt similar safety measures, including daily time limits, nighttime restrictions and age-assurance practices.
That provision gives Meta an incentive to argue that youth-safety rules should apply across the industry, rather than only to Facebook and Instagram.
TikTok and YouTube have not agreed to the Meta settlement, and the deal does not automatically impose its requirements on them.
But their response could shape whether the agreement’s full financial value is paid and whether the settlement becomes a broader industry benchmark.
A significant financial cost, but manageable
The potential $18 billion payout is enormous in absolute terms.
Reuters said the total represents about three to four months of profit for the Menlo Park, California-based company.
That comparison illustrates Meta’s scale. The company owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger, and generates billions of dollars in quarterly advertising revenue.
For Meta, the more consequential issue may be operational rather than financial.
Teen engagement is valuable to social media companies because younger users can become long-term customers and because advertisers often seek to reach younger audiences.
Time caps, nighttime blocks, and notification restrictions could reduce the number of hours teenagers spend on Facebook and Instagram. If broadly implemented and enforced, they could also affect advertising impressions and engagement metrics.
Meta may try to offset some of that effect through features aimed at parents, changes in content recommendations, or new products designed for older users.
But the settlement makes clear that the company can no longer treat child-safety concerns solely as a public-relations issue.
The agreement imposes specific behavioral constraints on the platforms, even while leaving central elements of Meta’s advertising model intact.
How the money will be used
The settlement payments are expected to be distributed to the participating states, but how the money is spent may vary.
Some states will place funds in general accounts. Others will direct a portion toward youth mental health programs, online safety initiatives, after-school programs, crisis intervention services and related services.
That flexibility could produce uneven results.
States that dedicate money to mental health care, school counseling, digital literacy and youth services may use the settlement to address some of the harms alleged in the litigation.
States that direct funds into general budgets may face criticism from advocates who want the money tied more directly to children’s well-being.
The agreement does not itself determine how every state will spend its share. That will likely become a major issue as state legislatures, governors and attorneys general decide how to allocate funds over the next decade.
The limits of the agreement
The proposed settlement is sweeping, but it does not settle the broader scientific and public-policy debate over social media and mental health.
Researchers have found associations between heavy social media use and some mental health concerns, particularly among adolescents. But establishing direct cause and effect can be difficult because young people’s experiences vary and mental health outcomes are shaped by family, school, economic conditions, bullying, access to care and other factors.
The settlement does not require a court finding that Meta caused particular mental health outcomes.
Instead, it resolves legal claims without a trial verdict. Meta’s denial of liability remains part of the agreement.
The deal also does not ban teens from using Facebook or Instagram. It does not require Meta to eliminate algorithmic recommendations or targeted advertising. And some provisions may be time-limited.
The BBC reported that certain high-profile measures, including daily limits and nighttime restrictions, would remain in effect for five years unless industry competitors agree to adopt similar protections.
That condition could limit the long-term impact if other companies do not follow Meta’s lead.
Critics may argue that the measures are too narrow, too dependent on age-verification tools or too temporary. Industry groups may argue that the rules are burdensome, difficult to enforce, and likely to push teenagers toward less regulated platforms.
What happens next
The settlement must be approved by Judge Gonzalez Rogers before it takes effect.npr
Court approval is not automatic, though large negotiated settlements involving state governments are often approved unless the judge identifies legal or procedural problems.
Once approved, Meta would begin making payments and implementing the required youth-safety changes.
The company will face close scrutiny over enforcement.
A two-hour time limit only matters if age checks are reliable and if users cannot easily evade the restrictions. Nighttime blocks will raise questions about parental consent, different time zones, and how Meta verifies who is using an account.
The agreement may also intensify calls for federal legislation.
The United States has struggled to pass broad national rules governing children’s online safety, social media design and age verification. States have increasingly tried to fill the gap with their own laws and litigation.
The Meta settlement shows that state attorneys general can use consumer-protection and privacy claims to force changes even without a new federal statute.
For Meta, the deal provides a way to end a damaging trial and limit legal uncertainty.
For parents, teenagers and policymakers, it creates a larger question: whether a company’s agreement to limit screen time and late-night use can meaningfully change the relationship between young people and the social media platforms that shape so much of their daily lives.