On Wednesday, Meta agreed to pay about $17 billion to settle claims it deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and teens, misled the public about the platforms’ safety and improperly collected children’s data.
The settlement requires Meta to adopt protections for young users, including a combined two-hour daily limit on Facebook and Instagram, nighttime restrictions, limits on school-day notifications, stronger age-assurance measures and parental controls. About $5.3 billion of the financial settlement is contingent on YouTube and TikTok adopting specified protections and making matching payments.
Meta denies wrongdoing. The agreement requires court approval. Meta’s second-quarter 2026 earnings report says as of June 30, it had $90.26 billion in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities.
University of Virginia law professor Danielle Citron, a nationally sought expert on online privacy and safety and a 2019 MacArthur Fellow, says not to be swayed by the seemingly large payout from the settlement, and warns that Meta’s new pledges to protect children and teens are disingenuous.
“Four years ago, they testified before Congress they were doing that,” she said. “To say they’re pledging to do that now shows the lie.”
Citron shared more of her expertise with UVA Today.
Q. What were the states alleging Meta did wrong?
A. The theory is the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act was violated. That is, they were collecting (data) without verified parental consent, data from children – so those under 13 – and knowingly so. There were lots of reports, and there have been whistleblower accounts that make it very clear that they knew that they were collecting, using, sharing and exploiting data from children under 13. So that’s the first important piece.
Please don’t be misled by the fact that this seems like a really big number. Let us say that this is not a penalty that hurts them, I don’t believe, in their pocket.
The second is a series of unfair and deceptive practices. That is the design of their sites; they knew they were keeping kids on the platforms at all hours. That they knew and designed the sites in ways that exploited children, much in the way we think of how casinos exploit people who use slot machines.
Q. The settlement is worth billions of dollars. How significant is that amount for Meta?
A. Please don’t be misled by the fact that this seems like a really big number. Let us say that this is not a penalty that hurts them, I don’t believe, in their pocket.
Q. What do you think of the protections the settlement puts in place for children and teens?
A. Now let’s be clear about what this all means: This is a default, for the most part, that parents can override. First of all, it puts too much pressure on parents. The parental control model is so grievously flawed. I know because I am a parent.
When I talk to parents, they’re overwhelmed. Their kids are very persuasive. Parents are working two jobs. They’re incredibly busy. They’re overly burdened, and they often give in to their kids’ requests because they love them. They think they’re doing good.
Q. What do you think is missing from the settlement?
A. (What is) so glaring here, as someone who writes about privacy, (is) that Meta isn’t pledging not to collect, use, exploit and share data about teens.
