Meta Cannot Buy Its Way Out of Childhood, by Fransiscus Nanga Roka

A settlement will end a lawsuit; it won’t bring back your childhood.

On August 26, 2026, Meta entered into a settlement agreement with the states to resolve their claims against Facebook and Instagram. The settlement resolved a federal trial which began on August 18 in Oakland, California. The trial was based on allegations that Meta had used addictive design, provided false assurances about user safety, and illegally collected data from children. Meta has stated they did nothing wrong.

The central issue can be expressed in the most basic terms: once a child logs off the internet, what are the costs that a child’s parents will have to bear because the company made money by having him/her spend time on the internet?

The states claimed that Meta developed features to attract young users and portrayed its platforms as safe. The states also challenged Meta’s collection of personal data from children under age 13 without obtaining prior authorization from the child’s parent. The allegations involve corporate decision-making, consumer protection and privacy issues — not simply that teenagers spend excessive amounts of time using their cellphones.

Accountability is dependent upon the accuracy of information. The reported $1.4 trillion is how Meta described the penalties that were being calculated by the four states in a legal document filed with the court; however, Meta challenged these numbers. Therefore, it was never a court-ordered fine. When you convert possible liability into a definite obligation, it is much simpler to write sensationalist articles and significantly more difficult to provide serious scrutiny.

The previous verdicts must be carefully differentiated as well. In one proceeding, a Los Angeles jury found that Meta and Google were both liable for $6 million in damages. In another, a New Mexico jury found that Meta was liable for $375 million. The two lawsuits were based upon separate facts and the companies are appealing each verdict. However, neither necessarily provides a basis for liability in future lawsuits.

However, the resolution demonstrates a major regulatory shortcoming; that is, the government has been overly reliant upon families as a means of managing the inherent risks associated with commercial systems.

While parents should be responsible for their children’s activities; however, this cannot serve as an excuse for corporations to avoid liability. No family is capable of independently evaluating the accuracy of recommendations made by corporations, internal experiments conducted by corporations, or whether or not there are effective safety controls in place.

The potential contract will have to be used within certain limits and provide more protection. In addition to being able to report about what happens in the future with independent monitoring and payments made over 10 years, those commitments are important; however, how much they will ultimately mean to us depends upon whether or not the commitments can be enforced, how many people are included in the potential contract, and if we actually get the desired results.

Five strategic priorities for government action.

First of all, require independent reviews of internal testing results; the use of recommendations systems; and the safety data collected. Then publish those reviews, protecting individual’s privacy rights but exposing the problems in the institutions.

In addition to regulating the ways in which products are designed, directly address design (e.g., provide meaningful breaks in game play, default to a quiet night-time mode, restrict the use of manipulative methods to encourage kids to play games). Rather than measuring how many safety controls companies say they have implemented, measure if the safety controls actually decrease harm.

The third point is to ensure that children’s privacy is protected while conducting an age verification process. The need to protect children from harm should never justify the creation of long-term identity databases; excessive collection of biometric information; or the use of child verification data for purposes other than age verification.

Fourth, we should keep the money from settlement agreements to fund accessible health care treatments; school-based counseling programs; and independent research on children’s issues. We need to publish how much we are spending on each of these things, along with the results of that spending. Children’s needs must be addressed prior to the use of such funds for political advertising.

Extend the international reach of protective measures. Whether a child is living in Indonesia, India, or Kenya, they are entitled to the same level of protection that has been established through negotiations with American users. The amount of protection a child receives should not be limited by where he/she lives.

The courts must determine what caused an injury in a way that is fair to both sides of the case. The government must also maintain the ability for people to communicate in ways that are beneficial to them. Neither requirement can justify the use of unclear designs or providing false assurances.

If Meta alters the incentive structure that drives its products, that is the true test. If the payment does not alter the underlying process of compulsive use, then the government has purchased a very expensive “permission slip.”

Childhood should never be considered an expense that a company can easily handle.

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia