Meta trial: can more be done to protect the young?
A 16.68 billion-dollar fine and fundamental changes to youth protection: this is the settlement reached by Meta and the US states that brought the lawsuit. The plaintiffs had accused the company of deliberately designing its Facebook and Instagram platforms to be addictive to young users. The settlement, reached in Oakland, California, is also making waves in Europe.
A model for Europe
Handelsblatt welcomes the agreement:
“Firstly, findings from Australia suggest that the main result of a total ban is: workarounds. ... Secondly, the changes that Meta is now introducing are far-reaching. Time limits and restrictions at night and during school hours are a step in the right direction. They point the way towards getting the risks of social media for young people under control. The same applies to the removal of 'likes' and 'reactions' – the key addictive features of the previous algorithms. Stricter content controls and more say for parents are also the right moves. ... The European Commission should take the examples from the US as a model – and impose strict but uniform guidelines on all providers regarding the protection of children and youths.”
US suddenly leading the way
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung also praises the US approach compared to the social media bans in other countries:
“This comparison sends a strong signal. Suddenly the US is leading the way in child protection on social media platforms. With measures that are more elegant and better thought out than a blanket ban on under-16s because they preserve the positive aspects of these networks while minimising the harm. This is good news, especially for today's young people.”
International impact
The Guardian predicts that the pressure will mount on Meta to do more to protect young people in other countries too:
“Meta has now demonstrated putting these restrictions in place is possible. Given the drive towards child safety online in the UK and Australia, it seems likely that politicians will soon ask why American teenagers get them and children in their own countries don't. ... And it's that which may prove the settlement's biggest consequence. Meta has paid billions to manage to duck liability in one court case. But in doing so, it may have opened up the possibility of change in a raft of other countries.”
Getting off lightly
The Süddeutsche Zeitung laments that the case did not go to trial:
“A trial would have forced Meta to reveal many trade secrets. With all the media coverage, it would have clarified the addictive effects and long-term harm caused by social media. It would certainly have imposed stricter and more far-reaching conditions requiring the company to change its practices. The settlement has reduced the fine to 1.2 percent of the company's market valuation. This is unlikely to have any long-term impact on investors or share prices. By way of comparison: for someone on the average German salary of 54,000 euros per year [before taxes], this is equivalent to a fine of 660 euros. That's how much you have to pay if you've been caught driving 60 kilometres per hour over the speed limit. Painful, but manageable.”
This is not how to take responsibility
The real victims won't receive any compensation, laments Der Standard:
“Seventeen billion – that's a lot of money. But not when you consider that Meta made a profit of 60 billion dollars last year alone, and that the prosecutors had demanded a fine of up to 1.4 trillion dollars. Meta doesn't want to pay this sum on its own and has called on its competitors, YouTube and TikTok, to pay their share. The money will go to the 48 US states. Parents whose children are already struggling with social media addiction or dependency will see none of it. This is not what taking responsibility looks like.”
Cause for celebration and concern for EU
Europe should put some thought into this agreement, Le Soir argues:
“Within just a few days of legal proceedings, the Americans have secured changes that are immediately noticeable on their user interfaces. Oakland has highlighted a structural weakness in Europe: the shift from regulation to visible results. The EU should by no means give up on regulation. It must certainly simplify the rules, however it must not scale them back. In particular, it must learn to make this regulation faster, more concrete and more visible to users, young and old alike. The Oakland settlement should therefore be a cause for celebration for the EU, as it confirms most of the principles it has been defending for years. But it should also be cause for concern, as it shows that just being right before everyone else is not enough.”
Company's image in tatters
La Vanguardia draws comparisons with other corporations that have had to pay fines:
“This is not the highest fine ever imposed on a company in the US. In 2015, BP paid 20.8 billion dollars for the oil spill caused by an offshore platform, and Bank of America paid 16.65 billion dollars for selling toxic mortgages that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. Tobacco companies paid 206 billion dollars in 1998 for causing cancer and concealing the carcinogenic and addictive elements in cigarettes, and opioid manufacturers paid 20.8 billion in 2022 for causing another addiction crisis. Meta has avoided a high-risk trial, but its reputation has undoubtedly suffered major damage.”