Expanded parental control on Instagram and Facebook. A ban on certain beauty filters. Two-hour daily time limits for users under 18. These are some of the requirements Meta leadership agreed to in a $17.1 billion historic settlement with nearly every state in the nation. Meta says these sweeping changes are a safety overhaul intended to protect children.
But will it work?
Probably not, some digital safety researchers and advocates say.
Why We Wrote This
Meta agreed to new rules for minors on its social platforms as part of a legal settlement. Children’s advocates say another key role in online safety for kids belongs to parents.
“All these commitments to make the platform better hinge on age verification,” says Mimi Ito, a cultural anthropologist and learning scientist at the University of California, Irvine. “Teens will find a way around it.” How Meta will verify users’ ages is among the still unanswered questions.
Other children will also just migrate to other platforms that don’t have restrictions, says Anne Collier, founder and executive director of the U.S.-based nonprofit The Net Safety Collaborative.
“Children’s digital experience ebbs and flows constantly,” and putting restrictions on one platform is not going to make them safe, says Ms. Collier, who has served as an adviser to Meta since 2009, for which her nonprofit receives a stipend. “There will always be bad actors moving in dark places where kids can go, unfortunately. That’s why it’s so important for parents and caregivers to be in good communication – curious, open-hearted, open-minded communication – with their children.”
It’s unclear whether other social media platforms will follow suit.
C.J. Mahoney, Meta’s chief legal officer, said in a statement Wednesday that the framework would only work if other platforms, including TikTok and YouTube, take similar steps. “Because teens move fluidly across dozens of apps, we need an industry-wide solution.”
As part of the settlement – which resolves claims against the company brought by 47 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, including a landmark trial that had commenced in California last week – Meta agreed to pay a minimum of $11.7 billion over a decade to the states. Meta agreed to pay another $5 billion if TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat ended up settling state claims on similar terms.
In the lawsuit, state attorneys general alleged that the company helped fuel a child mental health crisis. Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook and Instagram, among other social media platforms, denied any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
There is evidence suggesting that banning social media or setting restrictions on social media companies doesn’t tend to work.
Exhibit A is Australia, which imposed a nationwide ban on social media for children under 16 on Dec. 10, 2025, becoming the first country in the world to implement such a restriction.
Months later, indications show that the law has largely failed, according to data from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, the regulatory agency tasked with enforcing the law. According to a report in March, 7 in 10 parents whose children already had an account said the teens were still on one of the age-restricted platforms.
“The majority of teens are not complying with the ban,” says Dr. Ito, who has kept close watch on Australia’s ban. “The reality is that social media has become the essential way kids do their everyday social life. Even schooling and a lot of other things are mediated through the platforms. It’s difficult to take away something that has become essential infrastructure.”
Ms. Collier, who also runs NetFamilyNews and piloted a social media helpline for schools in California, says laws are a “very clumsy” means of keeping kids safe.
“It’s like a blunt instrument, if it treats all children as equally at risk. It’s simply not the case. It’s not a monolithic population,” Ms. Collier says.
