Meta's settlement with states in a child safety case this week had a big payout, but the attorneys general have their eyes on a bigger prize: national regulation of social media companies.
When Meta agreed to settle a landmark child safety case this week, it said it would pay up to $17 billion in penalties. That's among the largest settlement payouts by any company in U.S. history. But that's not what the state attorneys general who brought the case were excited about. Here's California's AG Rob Bonta.
ROB BONTA: It's not about the money, although the money is important and significant. The lead here is the injunctive relief.
SIMON: By injunctive relief, he means changes Meta has to make to its platforms so they're considered safer for teens, changes the company has resisted and that Congress hasn't been able to achieve through legislation. NPR tech correspondent John Ruwitch joins us now. John, thanks for being with us.
SIMON: Before we get into this legal strategy, what kind of changes did Meta agree to?
RUWITCH: Sure. So this case was a reaction to widespread concern that social media can be unhealthy for kids and has fueled a teen mental health crisis in America. The states argued in their case that Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to kids. It knew they were getting exposed to dangerous content and lied about it to the public. So in the settlement, Meta agreed to make changes to its platforms that aim to better protect kids from addiction. That includes time limits on daily use, blockers at night and during the school day, no access to beauty filters, no information for minors about how many people like their posts. The idea is that teens would be on these platforms less.
SIMON: Why is this the focus for these state AGs rather than the money?
RUWITCH: Yeah. Look, the money is going to be used to fund things like mental health programs and after-school activities. That's all meaningful. But the AGs are trying to do something that's much bigger. Part of this settlement is an effort to get three other big social media platforms – Meta's main competitors – to sign on to similar use restrictions for kids. Those platforms are YouTube, TikTok and Snap. They were not involved in this specific trial, but they've been named in all kinds of other lawsuits that are related to kids and mental health. We reached out to these companies for comment but haven't heard back.
For Meta, having them agree eventually to the same rules would level the competitive playing field and make sure that its users don't just migrate to other platforms with looser rules. For the AGs, it's part of a pretty interesting gambit.
RUWITCH: Yeah. The AGs aren't just enforcing the law here. They're trying to create a regulatory regime around social media companies where there isn't one right now. I asked William Tong about this. He's the AG for Connecticut, which was part of the case, and I wanted to know why the state attorneys general are being so aggressive in pushing these changes to how social media companies operate.
WILLIAM TONG: It's in large part because there are large areas of American life that require action or require protective action to keep people safe where Congress has not been effective.
RUWITCH: Basically, they're using litigation to replace legislation. Now, to be fair, some states have put in place regulations, but at a national level, most attempts have failed. Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University, says that is in part because Big Tech is rich and powerful and has been very successful in lobbying against regulation.
TIMOTHY LYTTON: And so that's why you see, I think, attorneys general stepping in where legislatures and governors have not been willing to go.
RUWITCH: He says they're acting as a kind of insulated counterbalance to the politics of it all. And it's worth noting, the AGs in this case were a bipartisan group.
SIMON: That is interesting in these times. How do you rate their chance of success in reining in these social media companies?
