It started in 2023 when US states accused Meta of deliberately designing platforms to promote addiction and misleading the public about potential harm to children. The states also claimed that the company collected data from children under 13 without parental consent.
Read more Putin and Trump discussed the possibility of ending the war in Ukraine within two years
Partner at the law firm Tegos, lawyer, and head of the Technology group Mindaugas Civilka says that the significance of the agreement goes beyond financial sanctions.
“This is a very significant precedent because in this case it is not only about the content on the platforms but also about the product design itself – how the social network is created and what mechanisms are used to keep the user’s, especially a young developing user’s, attention,” says M. Civilka.
What will Meta have to change?
One of the most important parts of the agreement is the application of a reliable user age verification mechanism. Meta will also have to consider age signals received from Google and Apple operating systems and app stores.
Users will be divided into three groups: 18 years and older, 13–17 years, and under 13 years. Children under 13 are prohibited from using Meta products.
According to the agreement, Instagram and Facebook users under 18 will have a combined daily usage limit of two hours. After 15, 60, and 90 minutes of continuous use, warnings will be shown and breaks suggested, and only parents can change the limit. Most functions will be blocked from midnight to 6 a.m., and notifications will be muted during regular school hours, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Exceptions will apply for safety or danger alerts.
Teenagers will also be given more control over their news feed – they can choose content less based on algorithmic recommendations, disable automatic video playback, and hide the number of likes. Meta has committed to improving technologies that identify users under 13 and strengthening protection of minors from adults who should not contact them.
These restrictions could be changed if a teenager uses the Parental Supervision program, linking their account with that of a parent or guardian. Parents could modify and relax the teenager’s settings, but tightening them would require the teenager’s consent.
At the same time, this model raises privacy and autonomy issues. Parents could see information about the teenager’s service usage time, the usernames of their contacts and correspondents, as well as data about possible additional accounts of the teenager. For 16–17-year-olds, this raises questions about their autonomy, privacy, and dignity.
“It is important to understand that the peace agreement itself does not mean that Meta admitted to violations. The company continues to deny the states’ accusations. However, it agrees to specific product and operational changes, so the practical significance of this agreement is substantial,” says M. Civilka.
The agreement also provides for an independent external auditor who will assess Meta’s compliance with its commitments over the next decade.
Why is this important beyond Meta?
The financial part of the agreement is huge, but its impact on Meta’s business will not necessarily be proportional to the amount. The company earned about $200 billion in revenue last year, so an $18 billion payment alone would not change its business model.
Product changes may be much more important. Meta’s business largely depends on users’ attention and time spent on its platforms. If teenagers spend less time on the platforms, it could potentially reduce advertising impressions and user engagement opportunities.
“From a regulatory perspective, it becomes very important not only what content the user sees but also how the platform is designed, how recommendation systems work, and what methods are used to keep a person on the platform,” says M. Civilka.
Read more At the same address, the services are constantly invited, only the stories change
However, the agreement does not require Meta to abandon personalized recommendation algorithms or targeted advertising, so the company’s main revenue model essentially remains.
Pressure will affect the entire market
M. Civilka says the impact of the agreement may not be limited to Meta’s platforms.
“According to the agreement, part of the funds would be paid only if similar safety measures are taken by other major platforms, including TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat. Meta has also planned the possibility to further reduce teenagers’ usage time if competitors adopt similar restrictions,” notes the lawyer.
This creates pressure on the entire market: if one platform restricts minors’ usage but competitors do not, users may move elsewhere. Therefore, it is important for regulators that safety standards are not applied to only one market participant.
US activists are already urging Congress to adopt federal regulations that would apply similar safety requirements to all social media platforms.
What awaits Europe?
The US agreement legally applies in 47 states, but its significance may be broader. Meta’s platforms operate globally, so in the long run, it may be difficult and costly for the company to maintain completely different product versions in different markets.
Europe already has a separate regulatory mechanism. The European Commission has initiated actions against Meta under the Digital Services Act (DSA), focusing heavily on minor protection, algorithmic recommendations, endless scrolling, automatic video playback, and parental controls. After the US agreement, the EC stated it aims to ensure European children receive at least the same level of protection.
“The US agreement is important for Europe not so much because of the specific two-hour or other limits, but because of the direction. Regulation is increasingly moving towards evaluating not only what the platform publishes but also how it is designed and what user behavior it encourages,” says the Tegos partner.
In the EU case, the consequences for the company may also be significant – violations of the Digital Services Act could theoretically result in fines of up to 6% of the company’s global annual turnover.
Moreover, by restricting usage on one platform, teenagers may choose other social platforms, gaming environments, or chat apps. Young people also quickly find new alternatives – among them, interactive AI systems like ChatGPT, Character.ai, or Meta AI are becoming increasingly popular. This raises new questions about emotional dependency and minor protection.
“Regulation can change the behavior of technology, but legal means cannot change the direction of technological progress, and regulation itself does not solve all the social and psychological reasons why people use social networks,” says M. Civilka.
A new stage in social media regulation
The true impact of the agreement is likely to become clear not immediately. Some changes will be implemented over the coming years, and evaluating their results will require monitoring not only the platforms’ operation but also user behavior.
However, the US case shows a clear regulatory direction: states increasingly seek responsibility not only for what is published on social networks but also for how the platforms themselves are designed and what behavior their design encourages.
According to M. Civilka, this change may ultimately be more important than the $17 billion amount itself.
Read more NT market – another active month: what do the latest transaction data show?
