As part of the landmark agreement, Meta will fundamentally change how Instagram and Facebook operate for young users. The company will implement an age-assurance framework designed to identify users under 13 and those ages 13-18. Users under 13 will not be permitted on Instagram or Facebook. This framework does not require users to provide identification to verify their age, and users ages 13-18 will receive important protections, including a two-hour daily limit across Instagram and Facebook, breaks designed to interrupt mindless scrolling, restricted access overnight, silenced notifications during school hours, blocked “like” counts and beauty filters, and greater protections against being contacted by unknown adults.
And importantly, these protections will not require parents to spend hours navigating and fighting with computer settings. They will be the default.
Social media can be a powerful tool for young people. It can help them learn, create, and find community. Yet, the way this technology is designed can have harmful consequences on a young person’s well-being.
The problem is not simply that kids use technology. It’s that technology companies have spent enormous resources, employing world-class engineers, psychologists, and data scientists, to understand how young people think and behave. And then they intentionally created and designed products they knew would be addictive to young people.
Parents and educators do not have the power or tools to redesign a product or platform — only the companies that built them can.
That’s why my office sued companies like Meta and TikTok, alleging that they designed their platforms to be harmful and addictive to young users, prioritizing profits over the well-being of our youth.
Earlier this year, my office won a groundbreaking ruling from the Supreme Judicial Court affirming that technology companies cannot hide behind federal law, namely Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, when they violate the state’s consumer protection laws. That ruling opened the door for my office and other states to hold technology companies accountable for how they design and operate their products.
These are meaningful changes, but they are only a first step. My office will continue pursuing its case against TikTok. However, there will always be another app, and holding one platform at a time accountable will not solve the larger systemic issues quickly or bring about industrywide changes young people deserve.
The Massachusetts Legislature has been working on these issues and should establish stronger protections for young people, including bell-to-bell restrictions on phone use in schools, a 60-minute daily limit on social media use, and stronger default privacy settings.
If the Legislature acts, these protections would apply across all platforms, including Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube, as well as future platforms. That would prevent technology companies from simply shifting young people from one app to another and ensure that youth receive meaningful protections no matter which platforms they use.
As technology evolves and protections for young people expand, the First Amendment cannot and should not be used as a shield against accountability. The First Amendment protects speech. It does not give corporations a free pass to design products in ways that harm people for a profit or violate our consumer protection laws.
From social media to artificial intelligence to the infrastructure powering it all, tech accountability will be one of the defining issues of the years ahead. The responsibility is clear: The technology children grow up with must be worthy of their trust.
