This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Meta has announced a range of new measures designed to better protect teen users from the harms of social media overuse. However, questions remain regarding what that might mean for social media engagement more broadly, and how these restrictions could impact usage trends.
On Aug. 26, Meta agreed to pay approximately $18 billion to settle a lawsuit filed by a coalition of 29 U.S. state attorneys general which alleged that Meta had knowingly created addictive, harmful apps that were designed to maximize usage and profit.
In addition to its financial settlement, Meta agreed to implement a range of new restrictions for U.S. users under age 18, including:
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Meta has announced a range of new measures designed to better protect teen users from the harms of social media overuse. However, questions remain regarding what that might mean for social media engagement more broadly, and how these restrictions could impact usage trends.
On Aug. 26, Meta agreed to pay approximately $18 billion to settle a lawsuit filed by a coalition of 29 U.S. state attorneys general which alleged that Meta had knowingly created addictive, harmful apps that were designed to maximize usage and profit.
In addition to its financial settlement, Meta agreed to implement a range of new restrictions for U.S. users under age 18, including:
A daily default two-hour usage time limit cumulative across Facebook and Instagram
A default block on Meta apps between midnight and 6 a.m.
Notifications will be muted by default during school hours (8 a.m. to 3 p.m.)
Teen users will be able to choose a non-algorithmic feed as their default.
All of these will impact Meta usage, and subsequently how marketers target younger audiences.
However, key questions about the case, and the surprise outcome, linger.
Why did Meta choose to settle?
Meta settled the case a few days after the trial began, and notably only a day after Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri faced questioning about Instagram’s approach to safety and transparency.
In particular, Mosseri was asked about Instagram’s approach to teen user safety and questioned over whether he knew about the potential censorship of public releases of internal data relating to low take-up of Instagram’s teen safety measures.
According to The Guardian, Mosseri was asked about the user response to Instagram’s Take a Break feature, which encourages teens to stop using the app after certain time thresholds. According to Colorado State Prosecutor Jason Slothouber, only 1.8% of teen Instagram users had signed up for the feature. Mosseri didn’t deny this, but he also said Instagram had not deliberately avoided publishing specific figures.
It’s possible that revelations like this one may have influenced Meta’s decision to settle, with the potential PR damage of such claims posing a larger problem for a company that desperately needs to win back public trust.
According to multiple surveys, public trust in Meta has generally been very low, and hasn’t improved despite Meta’s repeated attempts to win over users by touting its updated safety, data privacy and usage controls.
Meta can’t enable that type of advanced advisory functionality unless people trust it with more of their personal data. As such, given that the company is investing hundreds of billions of dollars into its AI projects, an $18 billion payout may not seem that significant, especially if it helps prevent further brand damage.
There were some indications that Meta could win this court battle, but a lengthy trial could result in many PR problems, and garner more headlines which would would further dent its image.
How will Meta effectively detect teens?
A key provision of Meta’s commitment to be able to better protect teens will be its capacity to actually identify teen users in the first place, given that none of the current age-checking processes available provide a foolproof means of detection.
That’s been a key challenge in Australia, where Meta recently reported that it’s blocked 750,000 teen accounts that it had found to be in violation of the nation’s social media ban.
However, according to a report from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, most underage users are still accessing social media apps using basic workarounds, such as changing their birth date to avoid detection.
Meta said that it’s strengthening the technology it uses to identify accounts, but the company also put the focus on app stores to drive adequate detection.
As Meta noted in its Wednesday settlement release: “To ensure teens are consistently protected across the many apps they use, app stores must provide developers with verified age information.”
Meta’s seeking to put more legal onus on app store providers, and if the app stores don’t comply, Meta could potentially point to them as the problem, thereby alleviating some of its own responsibility.
This remains a key point of contention, and without a uniform approach to age detection, there may be no real way to ensure that teens won’t just avoid detection in order to keep using Facebook and IG.
How will usage limits change engagement?
Meta will limit the usage of the teen users it detects to two hours per day, which will be a cumulative count across both Facebook and Instagram.
This will likely have less of an impact for Meta’s apps than it would if the same restrictions were imposed on YouTube and/or TikTok, the two platforms that Meta is calling on to follow its lead.
Facebook usage has been declining for years, especially among younger users. Instagram has been the company’s key connector to younger audiences, but data suggests that both TikTok and YouTube still have more overall engagement, in terms of time spent per user in each app.
According to data published by Sprout Social earlier this year, TikTok saw an average usage time of 97 minutes per user per day, compared to 85 minutes per user per day for YouTube, 73 minutes per user per day for Instagram, and 67 minutes per user per day for Facebook.
There are also age demographic variations within Sprout Social’s report, and none of the platforms have confirmed Sprout’s figures. But Meta has probably done the math internally, and determined that the impact of its usage limit for teens will be minimal for its apps, and more detrimental to its competitors.
It’s also likely that these time limits will have no impact on Meta’s monthly active user figures, which are the only figures the company officially reports. Because these users will still likely be logging in at the same or similar frequency, Meta’s overall usage numbers, which is what it uses to drive advertiser interest, will still remain the same.
Why aren’t Messenger and WhatsApp apps subject to time limits?
This was a critical provision in Meta’s Wednesday announcement: “Our direct messaging features are excluded from Night Mode, Time Limit, and School Mode restrictions, to allow teens to stay connected with friends and family.”
More online engagement has switched to messaging apps, which means that Meta will continue to see as much usage of Messenger and WhatsApp as ever despite this settlement.
This is a key element, and it’s possible Meta has already worked out that more teens are using its messaging tools anyway. Meta would also have the Australian market as an indicator on this front, so it already knows what teen users will most likely turn to in response to restrictions or bans.
Why did Meta ask TikTok and YouTube to align with these rules?
It’s unclear now whether TikTok and YouTube will actually agree to follow Meta’s lead, and voluntarily restrict teen usage in the same way.
But essentially, Meta is trying to deflect the bad press onto them, and if TikTok and YouTube refuse to follow suit, that will frame them as villains, and Meta as a hero, as it will then be the only one that’s actually listening and responding to public demand.
That public pressure could potentially be enough to force their respective hands. But if they refuse, Meta wins anyway.
This is a clever tactic by Meta to use a potentially harmful court trial as a competitive mitigation tactic, which may yield positive benefits for the business.
How do these changes relate to other teen social media bans?
Another consideration here is that Meta might have been on the road to implementing some of these changes anyway, due to the rising global push for teen social media restrictions.
Despite evidence that teen social media bans aren’t having the expected impact, many nations are still pushing ahead with plans to implement more stringent laws.
As such, Meta might have been preparing for this for some time, and has likely modeled most of these changes and their impacts.
This settlement agreement, then, will give Meta a simple runway to roll out these features in more regions, as demand for teen social media restrictions continues to expand.
How widespread will Meta’s regulations be?
Meta said these restrictions will only be put in place in the U.S., however, as more regions push for teen social media restrictions, the company will have a framework to implement restrictions elsewhere.
Of course, any further action on Meta’s part will relate to regional pushes, and may impact the viability of these approaches. It’s unlikely that Meta will voluntarily restrict user time, but if regional regulators push for change, Meta can now expand these measures as required, in order to meet evolving local laws.
How will this impact Meta’s business?
Probably not much.
Meta makes 98% of its income from ads, and while some advertisers that target younger audiences may look elsewhere as a result of this update, Meta will probably still have wider reach potential than any other company.
As noted above, since Meta only reports overall usage stats, and doesn’t report time spent per user, if teens can still access Facebook and Instagram every day, usage figures won’t be impacted.
There are no official stats on the percentage of Meta users under age 18, but some estimates suggest that this cohort makes up around 12% of Meta’s overall user base. For comparison, Meta’s largest audience by age bracket is users ages 25 to 34, which comprises around 24% of its audience, according to Statista.
Given its reach to household decision makers, Meta will continue to draw significant ad spend. Meanwhile, neither Facebook nor Instagram are as significant for teen engagement as YouTube or TikTok.
Though WhatsApp has become a more valuable tool for teen connections and Messenger also remains a relied-upon communications app.
The exclusion of these two platforms means that Meta will probably still have widespread reach and relevance for teens.
Also, Meta generated $200 billion in revenue in 2025 and posted about $60 billion in net income. An $18 billion penalty is significant, but when that is balanced against the cost of public trust, it could be worth it.
