Ben Kantor
October 16, 2026
On August 26th 2026, the tech corporation Meta (Meta Platforms Inc.) reached a settlement with 47 states, the District of Columbia, and several US territories, agreeing to pay $17.1 billion in compensation related to concerns about child safety and harm done to minors through Instagram and Facebook. The lawsuit, People of the State of California et Al v. Meta Platforms, Inc., [1] was first filed on the 24th of October 2023, and sought to hold Meta accountable for creating a system that California Attorney General Rob Bonta claimed, “Exploit[s] our most vulnerable residents to boost corporate profits,” [2]. Bonta goes on to allege in the same release, “Meta knew its platforms could harm young people, yet continued practices designed to keep them hooked — sacrificing sleep, being distracted in school, and even considering suicide — because more time online meant more money for Meta” [2]. Opening statements in the jury trial began on August 18th, 2026 , and just over a week later, a settlement was reached [3]. As I will discuss in this article, the trial is no more than a show, as it will cause no lasting harm to Meta, nor will it stop its predatory practices toward underage users. But before we get there, we need to understand why one of the ten largest technology companies in the world, with annual revenues around $200 billion, would settle in less than two weeks [4]. What evidence could be so potent, so damning, that it causes this large and powerful of a company to settle?
A possible answer to this question is offered by Stanford Law Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom: “Meta wouldn’t settle unless it sees the writing on the wall and feels really exposed” [5]. And see the metaphorical writing on the wall, they did. Meta is already reeling from two major losses in court this year, but this case stood poised to elevate that to the highest level. This time one of its own was to turn on the company and let out the proverbial skeletons in Meta’s closet. Arturo Béjar, a former Safety Engineer with a combined 8 years of work experience at Meta, was called to testify about the safety protections Meta implemented and the company’s internal workings [6] [7].
Throughout his testimony, Béjar painted the picture that revenue was the focus and said that “[safety] was not a meaningful priority” [6]. By Béjar’s own internal research, “51% of users said “yes” to having had bad or harmful experiences within the previous seven days. Of those users, the content was taken down only 0.02% of the time” [7]. When questioned about the safety features that Meta had committed to implementing after facing public pushback, Béjar directly stated that features such as the “take a break feature” [23] were “designed to fail” [6]. He likened the safety features to the equivalent of having to “turn on the airbag every time you get into the car” [6]. When asked directly about Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s portrayal of Meta’s commitment to safety online through public statements and posts on social media, Béjar said, “I felt that he created a false and misleading impression of Facebook’s commitment to young people” [7]. Béjar continues his testimony by noting how he directed these reports to Zuckerberg, who he “didn’t hear back from”, adding that in his experience at Meta, if “[Zuckerberg] makes something a priority, mountains move” [7]. This testimony paints a dire picture for the company, putting forth the narrative that Meta was well aware of the issues its platforms created, yet failed to take effective action and proceeded to misrepresent the actions it had taken to the public.
As Professor Engstrom put it, the evidence against Meta was clear, leading them to the quick and generous settlement. In fact, the settlement, on paper, amounting to $17.1 billion, would be 12 times larger than any settlement of the last four years [8]. But the number in the headlines is deeply misleading. Buried in the paperwork and legalese are a few caveats to the $17.1 billion number. First and most importantly, Meta agrees to only pay $12 billion; the other $5 billion is contingent on Meta’s competitors reaching similar settlements with the states, which there is no guarantee of. Next, the $12 billion is to be paid out over 10 years. With a profit of approximately $60 billion in fiscal year 2025, this would amount to just 2% of Meta’s annual earnings, assuming profits remain consistent over the next decade, although past data suggest they are likely to grow [10]. Even assuming Meta has to pay the extra $5 billion, that would bring the figure up to approximately 2.8% of Meta profits paid out to the plaintiffs.
As a provision alongside the monetary settlement, Meta committed to adding additional protections for teenagers and underage users, including blocking push notifications during standard school hours, limiting scrolling between midnight and 6 a.m., interrupting endless scrolling, and adding a default time limit of 2 hours [5]. Meta also committed to tightening its regulations further but again only if its main competitors, Snapchat, YouTube, and TikTok, agree to implement a similar framework [11]. Although these new safeguards are being implemented, industry experts remain largely skeptical, especially given Meta’s apparent disregard for child safety as presented through testimony [6] [7]. Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay for Kids, an organization dedicated to eliminating the exploitative and harmful business practices of big tech [13], noted that “In general, the settlement is too focused on offering parents tools rather than restricting harmful features” [12]. Golin isn’t alone in his assessment either; another industry expert, Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, a trade organization which conducts market research [15], says, “It doesn’t touch the engine…screen-time limits and hiding public metrics will reduce some exposure, but they don’t address the core issue: surveillance, extensive data collection and algorithmic microtargeting of users with advertising and user-generated content optimized to maximize attention and revenue” [14].
Golin and Kint, along with other industry figures, watchdog groups, advocates, former Meta employee Arturo Béjar, and New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, have all expressed concerns [14] [15] [16] [17], leaving many to wonder if this is all just another show designed to placate the public while Meta continues to profit from underage users. What is clear to experts and the public is that Meta is on the back foot right now. The August 26th Decision is the latest in a series of regulatory and legal blows that Meta and social media corporations have received around the globe in the last year. The first of these setbacks for the company came in December of 2025, when Australia became the first country to ban social media for children under 16 – the first country to do so in the world [18]. Domestically, lawsuits that had been ongoing for years reached similar conclusions. In New Mexico State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms Inc., Meta was ordered to pay $567 million to address concerns over Instagram and Facebook’s damage to children’s mental health [19]. Another legal case, K.G.M. v. Meta et al., was resolved a day after the New Mexico lawsuit (March 24th and March 25th, respectively). This case dealt with the individual harms children experienced through social media usage [20]. KGM, in particular, was a devastating legal blow to Meta because it served as a bellwether trial that could decide the fate of 10,000 similar trials occurring all across the country [21]. These two cases are equally as important to the multistate lawsuit, and together they paint a picture of an increasingly critical environment towards Meta in which regulators are pushing for more restrictions and protections against Meta and for users.
Meta is in trouble, legally speaking. On multiple fronts this year, the company has faced legal setbacks that could set precedents for Meta to lose thousands of similar cases. However, what might seem like the beginning of a death spiral for any other company may simply be the cost of doing business for Meta. As pointed out earlier, Meta at present only has to sacrifice 2-3% of its 60 billion dollar profit, which is projected to keep growing despite ongoing challenges. Meta is still gaining users despite all of the negative publicity and difficulties it is facing. According to its own data reported to the United State Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the number of people using its products daily has grown by 7% year over year [22]. The numbers show no signs of slowing down, and Meta’s history isn’t filling many with confidence that the changes it is being forced to make will have any effect. The 2026 settlements could very well be the beginning of a new age of regulation and accountability for Big Tech and Meta, or they could simply be a wrinkle in a budget line. Only time will tell.
Works Cited
[1] Wikipedia Contributors. 2026a. “People of the State of California V. Meta Platforms, Inc..” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, August 27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_State_of_California_v._Meta_Platforms,_Inc.
[2] State of California. 2026a. “Ahead of Opening Statements, Attorney General Bonta Lays out Case against Meta over Its Role in Fueling Mental Health Crisis in a Generation of Children.” State of California – Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General, August 17. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/ahead-opening-statements-attorney-general-bonta-lays-out-case-against-meta-over.
[3] CourtListener. 2026b. “People of the State of California V. Meta Platforms, Inc., 4:23-Cv-05448 – CourtListener.Com.” https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67908468/people-of-the-state-of-california-v-meta-platforms-inc/?page=4.
[4] Derrick, Maya. 2025. “Top 10: Technology Companies.” Technologymagazine.Com, Bizclik Media Ltd, September 3. https://technologymagazine.com/top10/top-10-technology-companies.
[5] Kang, Cecilia. 2026. “Meta to Pay up to $17.1 Billion in Landmark Settlement over Social Media Addiction Claims.” Edited by Eli Tan. New York Times, New York Times, August 26. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/26/technology/meta-settlement-social-media-addiction-lawsuit.html.
[6] Ruwitch, John. 2026a. “Whistleblower Arturo Béjar Leads Testimony in Landmark Trial against Meta.” NPR, August 19. https://www.npr.org/2026/08/19/nx-s1-5936648/meta-trial-arturo-bejar-whistleblower-testimony.
[7] Kerr, Dara. 2026. “Zuckerberg Lied about Concern for Child Safety, Meta Whistleblower Testifies at Landmark Trial.” The Guardian, The Guardian, August 19. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/19/meta-safety-trial-whistleblower-testimony.
[8] Hong, Joshua. 2026. “Meta’s $17.1 Billion Settlement Will Be over 12-Times Larger than the Second Largest Big Tech Privacy Settlement in the Past Four Years.” Fortune, August 26. https://fortune.com/2026/08/26/meta-17-1-billion-settlement-12-times-larger-big-tech/.
[9] Sec.Gov. 2025a. “Meta-20251231.” https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000162828026003942/meta-20251231.htm.
[10] Atmeta.Com. 2025a. “Meta Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Results.” https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2026/Meta-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2025-Results/default.aspx.
[11] Ruwitch, John. 2026b. “Meta, States Agree to $17 Billion Settlement in Child Safety Trial.” NPR, August 26. https://www.npr.org/2026/08/26/nx-s1-5944781/meta-settlement-child-safety-lawsuit.
[12] Holt, Kris. 2026. “Meta Will Pay up to $18 Billion to Settle States’ Lawsuit Alleging Harms to Young Users.” Engadget, August 26. https://www.engadget.com/2244582/meta-settles-states-lawsuit-alleging-harms-young-users/.
[13] Creative, Cornershop. n.d. “Home.” Fairplay. Accessed August 29, 2026. https://fairplayforkids.org/.
[14] Woodard, Holliday. 2026. “What Meta’s $18 Billion Settlement Means for Teens on Instagram and Facebook.” US News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, August 27. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2026-08-27/meta-settlement-what-changes-are-coming-to-instagram-and-facebook-for-teens.
[15] Digital Content Next. 2014. “Overview – Digital Content Next.” September 17.
https://digitalcontentnext.org/about/overview/.
[16] Gioino, Catherina. 2026. “Meta’s $18 Billion Settlement Leaves out the Child Protections New Mexico Already Won at Trial, Its Attorney General Says.” Fortune, August 26. https://fortune.com/2026/08/26/exclusive-new-mexicos-attorney-general-meta-18-billion-settlement-weaker-his-state-raul-torrez/.
[17] BARBARA ORTUTAY Associated Press, and WYATTE GRANTHAM-PHILIPS Associated Press. 2026. “Meta’s New Rules for Kids Go Further, but Critics Say Not Enough.” ABC News, August 27. https://abcnews.com/Technology/wireStory/time-limits-midnight-cutoff-metas-new-rules-kids-135995230.
[18] The University of Sydney. 2025b. “What Is Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban? The World-First Law Explained.” https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2025/12/05/what-is-australias-under-16-social-media-ban-the-world-first-law-explained.html.
[19] PBS News. 2026. “New Mexico Court Orders Meta to Pay $567 Million over Mental Health Harms to Kids Online.” PBS News, August 7. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/new-mexico-court-orders-meta-to-pay-567-million-over-mental-health-harms-to-kids-online.
[20] Wikipedia Contributors. 2026b. “K.G.M. V. Meta Et Al..” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, February 18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.G.M._v._Meta_et_al.
[21] Law, Spencer. 2026. “The Social Media Addiction Lawsuit: Social Media on Trial.” The Spencer Law Firm, March 19. https://www.spencer-law.com/post/social-media-addiction-trial.
[22] Sec.Gov. 2025b. “Document.” https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000162828026003832/meta-12312025xexhibit991.htm.
[23] Meta.Com. 2026c. “Safety Center – Tips to Protect Your Mental Health | Meta.” https://www.meta.com/safety/topics/safety-basics/tools/wellbeing/.