What does the Meta settlement mean for the UK? Five things we learned

The recent landmark settlement reached by Meta in the United States, involving a significant financial payout and the implementation of new child safety measures on its platforms, has prompted considerable discussion about its potential implications for the United Kingdom. While the UK has its own robust legislative framework for protecting children online, the developments in the US offer a compelling case study and may well influence future regulatory approaches and industry practices across the Atlantic.

The UK has already demonstrated a proactive stance on safeguarding young people in the digital realm, primarily through the introduction of the Online Safety Act. This comprehensive legislation primarily focuses on restricting the types of content that minors can access online, aiming to create a safer digital environment by holding platforms accountable for the material made available to children. However, the UK government’s approach has, in certain aspects, extended beyond the measures agreed upon in the US settlement. Earlier this year, a significant announcement was made regarding an outright ban on social media use for individuals under the age of 16, a policy slated to take effect in 2027. Furthermore, additional restrictions are being developed for teenagers aged 16 and 17, which will include limitations such as curfews and restrictions on usage during specific hours of the day, as detailed in previous reports.

The US settlement, in a way, mirrors the UK’s trajectory. It began with a focus on content moderation and has now evolved to incorporate restrictions on access to social media. However, a fundamental divergence lies in the nature and extent of these restrictions. Crucially, children in the US will not face a complete ban from social media platforms. Instead, the implemented measures will prohibit overnight access to Facebook and Instagram, enforce time limits on usage, and introduce prompts for users who spend extended periods on these platforms. A key distinction is that these measures are not legally mandated by the US government in the same way as UK legislation. Moreover, at present, these new safety features are exclusively applicable to Facebook and Instagram, leaving the broader social media landscape potentially unaffected by this specific settlement.

The UK government has publicly stated its intention to "follow developments closely" regarding the Meta settlement. The fact that Meta has voluntarily agreed to implement these enhanced safety features in the US, following legal pressure, could embolden other nations to demand similar concessions. Trevor Johnson, a former senior executive at Meta and TikTok, highlighted this dynamic in a recent interview with Radio 4’s Today programme, asserting that "these tech platforms don’t usually do anything unless they are told to do it." He further suggested that the UK "will feel empowered to at least ask for the same restrictions." This sentiment is echoed by Zvika Krieger, another former Meta director, who posited that Meta’s agreement to these changes was a strategic move, recognizing "the writing on the wall." Krieger believes Meta is attempting to demonstrate that "you don’t need to go and do a complete ban," and anticipates that the company "probably would roll out a lot of these features to the rest of the world as well."

While Meta was the primary target of this particular legal action, the company has strategically attempted to draw other major technology players into the regulatory spotlight. Concurrent with the announcement of the US settlement, Meta issued a public call for TikTok and YouTube to adopt similar child safety measures. A Meta spokesperson conveyed to Reuters their "hope" that Snap would also implement comparable changes. The tech giant has consistently advocated for a level playing field in regulatory matters, expressing concern that Facebook and Instagram might face more stringent restrictions than their rivals, potentially allowing competitors to attract younger users seeking a less regulated online experience. Meta’s official statement emphasized that "all platforms should empower parents and support teens in these ways because we know that when teens are restricted on one app, they simply move to another." In response, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok have maintained that they already have robust children’s safety policies in place. Johnson anticipates that "there will be pressure for those platforms to adopt similar restrictions," but cautions that these changes may not be forthcoming willingly. As of the time of reporting, nearly 24 hours after Meta’s challenge, none of the other platforms have issued a public statement. Ellen Roome, whose son Jools tragically died after participating in an online challenge and is part of a group suing TikTok in the US over child safety, expressed a familiar sentiment: "Time and time again social media companies don’t make changes until they’re forced."

The financial aspect of the Meta settlement, while substantial, is perhaps less impactful than the precedent it sets for future regulation and industry behavior. Meta will disburse up to $18 billion to nearly all US states, the District of Columbia, and three US territories. A significant portion of this payout, 30%, is contingent on TikTok and YouTube agreeing to implement child safety measures. This figure is considerably lower than the hundreds of billions that were speculated prior to the trial and represents a fraction of Meta’s $201 billion revenue from the previous year. Furthermore, the payout will be spread over a decade. However, the long-term financial implications for Meta could be more profound, potentially impacting future revenue through a decline in user numbers or reduced engagement from younger demographics. The complainants will share the funds, with individual states receiving varying amounts, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars each. New York State, slated to receive at least $819 million according to its attorney general, has announced that these funds will be allocated to "support mental health services, education programs, and other efforts to repair and reduce the harm caused by unhealthy social media use among young people." Numerous other states have indicated similar intentions for their share of the settlement. The only two US states not participating in the settlement are Florida, which rejected the terms, and New Mexico, which was excluded from the offer following previous court cases that resulted in a $942 million fine.

The comparison of social media companies to the "Big Tobacco" industry has been a recurring theme throughout these discussions, with former Meta whistleblower Arturo Béjar, a witness in the trial, drawing this parallel. Béjar pointed out that even after companies were found to be promoting harmful products, they "were still able to sell cigarettes and the cigarettes were still as harmful." Alexa Knight from the Mental Health Foundation offered a different analogy, likening social media platforms to consumer products. "We expect the manufacturers to make sure their products are safe before they’re released… particularly when there are children using them," she stated. "And we think it should be the same way for Big Tech." This perspective underscores the ongoing advocacy efforts by campaigners like Béjar and Knight, who are determined to see greater accountability from tech giants. Roome also acknowledged that the newly implemented measures represent a positive start but believes they do not go far enough, questioning, "what about the content on the platform?" while time limits on app usage are being introduced. While no one is suggesting the settlement is a definitive solution, it is highly probable that Meta and its counterparts in the social media industry will continue to face intense scrutiny regarding the safety of both children and adults on their platforms. The settlement, therefore, serves as a significant marker in the evolving landscape of digital safety, potentially paving the way for further regulatory interventions and a greater emphasis on platform responsibility across the globe, including in the UK.