Last Updated: September 3, 2026 
Meta Platforms has agreed to a proposed multistate settlement that would resolve participating attorneys general’s claims against the company and require substantial changes to the way minors use Facebook and Instagram.
The agreement halted a federal trial that began August 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is presiding over the litigation and must approve the proposed consent judgment before it becomes binding.
The states alleged that Meta designed Facebook and Instagram features to encourage compulsive use by children and teenagers, misrepresented the platforms’ safety, and collected personal information from children under 13 without the parental consent required by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Meta disputed the allegations, and the case ended without a verdict or judicial finding of liability.
Meta Could Pay Participating Jurisdictions Up to $17.1 Billion
The proposed agreement requires Meta to pay participating jurisdictions approximately $12.19 billion in annual installments over 10 years.
That amount could increase to approximately $17.1 billion if specified conditions are met, including comparable safety commitments and monetary relief from other major social media platforms. Because part of the payment is conditional, the full $17.1 billion is not guaranteed. Some accounts describe the agreement as approximately $18 billion after rounding or combining related settlement amounts.
The settlement payments will be distributed among the participating jurisdictions. The agreement does not create a compensation fund or establish individual settlement payments for Facebook or Instagram users.
Facebook and Instagram Must Introduce New Youth Protections
If the court approves the settlement, Meta must implement a series of protections for users under 18 on Facebook and Instagram. The principal requirements include:
1. a default combined two-hour daily limit across Facebook and Instagram that minors may change only with parental permission;
2. default restrictions on most app use between midnight and 6 a.m., while direct-messaging features remain available;
3. muted push notifications during designated school hours, subject to limited exceptions;
4. prompts after 15 minutes of continuous use and when daily use reaches specified milestones;
5. stronger technology intended to identify accounts belonging to children under 13 and users between 13 and 17;
6. expanded parental supervision tools and information about a teenager’s account activity;
7. default limits on visible like and reaction counts;
8. restrictions on cosmetic-surgery and extreme-makeup filters; and
9. options to disable autoplay and select a non-personalized feed.
Most of the requirements would remain in effect for 10 years. The initial daily-use and overnight restrictions would apply for five years but could become stricter and continue for 10 years if other platforms adopt comparable protections.
An independent auditor would review Meta’s compliance annually for five years and report the results to the participating jurisdictions. The agreement also provides for an independent research foundation that may receive data from users who consent to its use for research concerning teenage well-being.
Settlement Follows Meta’s Unsuccessful Attempt to Appeal Before Trial
Before the trial began, Meta pursued an immediate federal appeal concerning pretrial rulings involving its asserted protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed Meta and TikTok’s appeals as premature, concluding that the asserted Section 230 defense did not permit immediate appellate review at that stage. The appellate court therefore did not decide the ultimate merits of the states’ claims.
For more context on why some court rulings may be appealed before a case reaches a final judgment, and when an interlocutory appeal may be available, read Brownstone Law’s guide on what an interlocutory appeal is and when you can appeal before a final judgment .
Proposed Agreement Ends the States’ Trial Without a Liability Finding
The settlement was reached shortly after the federal trial over the states’ youth social media harm claims began in Oakland.
California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey were presenting claims under their respective consumer-protection laws, while the states participating in the federal case were also pursuing claims under COPPA. Because the parties settled before the court reached a decision, none of those allegations resulted in a liability finding against Meta through this proceeding.
The proposed consent judgment states that the agreement was entered for settlement purposes and does not constitute an admission that Meta violated the law. It resolves the covered claims of participating attorneys general but does not automatically dispose of separate lawsuits filed by private individuals, families, school districts or nonparticipating jurisdictions.
What Happens Next?
The proposed settlement will become binding only if Judge Gonzalez Rogers enters it as a consent judgment. Until then, its terms remain subject to court approval.
If approved, Meta will begin implementing the required changes according to the agreement’s deadlines. Participating attorneys general and the independent auditor will oversee compliance, while private and other social media cases outside the settlement may continue separately.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It discusses a proposed civil settlement and allegations that were not resolved through a verdict. The settlement remains subject to court approval, includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Meta, and does not determine the merits of any separate or pending claim.
