‘Meta realises it failed to adequately protect children’
In the media image: Brett Jordan on Unsplash
The high-profile lawsuit between Meta and dozens of US states has ended in a settlement. Bart Custers, Professor of Law and Data Science, says in ‘de Volkskrant’ that Meta has escaped without having to admit any real ‘wrongdoing’.
The lawsuit between Meta and 29 US states was about the question of whether Instagram and Facebook were deliberately designed by the parent company to make them addictive, causing mental health damage to young people for years. On Wednesday, the legal battle ended in an early settlement. Meta agreed to pay more than $16 billion and to implement a series of measures aimed at reducing the addictive nature of its platforms. These measures include blocking social media use at night for users under 18, hiding likes and comments, changes to the feed, a built-in screen-time limit, and restrictions on push notifications.
Meta has now escaped without having to admit any real ‘wrongdoing’, Bart Custers says. According to the professor, the settlement allows Meta to avoid the release of further evidence and the establishment of case law concerning the addictive characteristics of social media platforms. If the lawsuit had led Meta to admit wrongdoing, future claimants could have used that admission as a basis for pursuing their own cases.
On the other hand, Custers adds, by agreeing to a settlement Meta is signalling that it was not confident it could win the case. ‘There is growing evidence that social media platforms are addictive, and that companies deliberately designed them that way,’ according to the professor. ‘The fact that Meta was willing to implement these measures and pay a record amount to settle shows that it, too, has come to realise that it did not do enough to protect children.’
More information?
Read the full article in de Volkskrant (€, in Dutch)