A $17bn settlement with US authorities has forced Meta to make changes to how its platforms address child safety. Global Insight looks at how litigation and regulation have become increasingly effective in constraining the worst excesses of tech platforms.

The year 2026 could prove to be a turning point in the world’s relationship with social media platforms. Not only have courts in the US and Europe held major technology companies to account, but governments around the globe have passed legislation banning or severely restricting access to apps for teenagers.

The most eye-catching recent development saw Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, agree a $17.1bn settlement in a landmark US child safety case. The lawsuit, brought by 29 US states, claimed that Meta had failed to protect the youngsters who use its products from harm. Each state that took part in the action is expected to pay out money to individuals adversely affected by social media, as well as to initiatives such as those aimed at prosecuting online offenders.

The limits of litigation

The settlement highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of such litigation. Meta’s statement of agreement on the issue didn’t accept responsibility for any harm its products may have caused – during the case, it denied wrongdoing. That lets the company’s operational model, which is based on attention-grabbing algorithms, off the hook. Instead, Meta framed the settlement as part of its ongoing efforts to work with ‘parents and experts’ to design and implement the kinds of products consumers want.

From this perspective, the case is a clear win for the company. First, its executives didn’t have to face a lengthy hearing that would have interrogated the company’s practices and, if wrongdoing had been found, could have been damaging to its reputation. Second, Meta had faced a potentially existential claim for damages – up to $1.2tn, according to some estimates – though that amount would almost certainly not have been awarded. So, paying $17.1bn over ten years is not a huge ask for a company with gross profits of $165bn in 2025 alone.

Further, Meta only agreed to pay about $12.7bn of that amount unless rivals YouTube and TikTok – which are also very popular with teenagers – agree to contribute roughly $5.3bn each and implement similar restrictions on their platforms as Meta is to put in place. ‘We want to ensure teens benefit from this new industry standard, but we cannot do it alone,’ said Meta in an open letter to YouTube and TikTok.

Neither YouTube nor TikTok had responded publicly to Meta’s letter at the time of publication, while the three companies did not take up Global Insight’s invitation to comment. In public statements regarding the safety of children on their platforms, YouTube and TikTok have previously highlighted features such as the availability of time limits on short video feeds and the removal of direct messaging for under-16s, respectively.

Meanwhile, some consider the case a clear win for social media users because the courts have succeeded in winning concessions from a large technology platform regarding how it’ll operate going forward. For example, teenagers using Meta’s apps will now face a two-hour time limit across its platforms as well as a default block that locks them out of apps between midnight and 0600. They’ll also no longer see the number of ‘likes’ and reactions to posts by default.

By comparison, other child safety cases, such as the recent New Mexico court ruling in which Meta was fined $567m for failing to warn the public about the dangers its platforms posed to minors, have so far failed to make the companies involved alter their practices. Meta is appealing the New Mexico ruling.

In a US context, regulatory pressure on technology businesses hasn’t been on the federal agenda under President Donald Trump’s second administration. This means that litigation will probably remain the most likely avenue for those seeking a change in the way technology companies operate. But legal experts have noted that the Meta settlement has left the business model of making money from the private lives of children largely in place – and that more systematic accountability is needed. In the view of Christian Sandvig, Co-Director of the Center for Ethics, Society and Computing at the University of Michigan, the issue probably isn’t ‘something that we should solve with repeated lawsuits, but rather some structure of regulation.’

To ban or not to ban

Outside the US, governments have taken a more stringent regulatory approach to the issue over the past year. Beginning with Australia in December 2025 and continuing with action taken by the UK, the EU and France, certain countries are in the process of introducing stronger regulation to restrict how young people access their social media accounts.

In the UK, for example, children under 16 won’t be able to access a number of popular social media apps from spring 2027 – although the final list of prohibited platforms has yet to appear. Often referred to as ‘Australia plus’, the restrictions will include a block on livestreaming and on the ability of strangers to contact children.

Those under 18 years of age also face an overnight curfew, a default setting that switches off infinite scrolling and personalised feeds, as well as a potential ban on certain artificial intelligence chatbots, says the UK government. These measures will sit alongside existing rules under the UK’s Online Safety Act to protect people more generally from potentially harmful content relating to subjects such as terrorism, child sexual abuse and harassment.

The measures will build on the approach taken to social media platforms in the UK so far. For example, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has recently begun to focus on ensuring that businesses apply the age of digital consent – currently 13 years – on their apps. In one case, it fined Reddit almost £14.5m for failing ‘to apply any robust age assurance mechanism’ on its platform. This meant the platform was using children’s data unlawfully, the ICO said in its ruling from February. Reddit has appealed.

In March, the ICO also wrote an open letter to tech companies, telling them to strengthen age checks, before issuing a joint statement with Ofcom setting out compliance expectations on age assurance. These developments suggest that age verification systems will become the next battleground for enforcement action.

In September, the European Commission announced the EU Kids Act. The proposal would introduce a graduated approach to accessing social media, video-sharing, online games and AI platforms. Under the proposed rules, children under 13 would have no access to such platforms, while those aged between 13 and 15 would need to use accounts set up by legal guardians and would be limited to an hour’s usage per day. After the age of 15, teenagers would have access to their own accounts. Again, strict age verification technology would be required.

Meanwhile, France’s proposed national ban on children accessing social media has been amended after it was defeated in court over concerns for freedom of expression. The proposal now aims to introduce similar measures to those put forward under the EU Kids Act. If successful, this graduated approach could become the new industry standard for Europe.

Not surprisingly, all eyes have been on Australia, which introduced a ban on teens accessing social media in December 2025. While it’s too early to say whether the restrictions will work in the long term, government research conducted by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner showed that 4.7 million accounts had been deactivated by March. The number of teenagers with a social media account had also decreased. However, around 70 per cent of children who had an account before the ban still had access to one three months after the restrictions came into effect. About two-thirds of children with active accounts had never been asked by platforms to verify their age, found the research.

The government says it’s now going into enforcement mode. Australia’s Minister for Communications, Anika Wells, said that tech companies weren’t doing enough. ‘None of this is impossible. None of this is even difficult for big tech, who are innovative billion-dollar companies,’ she said. ‘If these companies want to do business in Australia, they must obey Australian laws.’ Under the law, the government can fine platforms up to AU$50m per breach for systemic failures to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts.

Sharpening minds

One clear advantage of pursuing change and redress through regulation is that it can make any infringements of the law easier to prove, while being less arbitrary than seeking justice through the civil courts. But for companies with seemingly bottomless pockets, neither awards for damages nor fines for compliance breaches will be sufficient on their own. There’s a question then as to what else could be effective.

‘I believe we are likely to see an increase in the number of corporate criminal liability cases brought against both social media and AI companies,’ says international human rights lawyer and technology specialist Susie Alegre, ‘and potentially personal criminal liability cases brought against individual directors.’

In 2024, Pavel Durov, who created the Telegram app, was arrested and placed under investigation by French authorities over allegations that he had failed to properly moderate the app to reduce criminality. In February, police carried out a raid on X’s offices in Paris, as part of an investigation into alleged criminal wrongdoing. X has denied any wrongdoing, while Telegram said at the time that the platform was fully compliant with the relevant EU regulations and its moderation ‘was within industry standards and constantly improving.’ It said it was ‘absurd to claim that a platform, or its owner, are responsible for abuse of that platform.’

However, these developments could be the beginning of a wider trend in those European countries with cultures that have traditionally turned to the criminal justice system for redress. If chief executives at some of the world’s wealthiest corporations face personal prison sentences for serious breaches of the law, it may help to sharpen their minds on the issue. Whatever route proves to be most effective, it’s clear that change is on the way.

Arthur Piper is a freelance journalist. He can be contacted at arthur@sdw.co.uk