Will Meta's massive settlement in a landmark US suit spur it to implement age restriction measures worldwide?

Will Meta's massive settlement in a landmark US suit spur it to implement age restriction measures worldwide? Experts said it makes sense for Meta to roll out its restrictions elsewhere, and that the growing awareness of social media harms may pressure other platforms to do the same. SINGAPORE: For the past several years, regulators around the world have pressured social media companies to make platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok safer for children, or risk facing stringent measures, including bans. So now that Meta – which owns Facebook and Instagram – has settled a lawsuit brought by US states and territories to the tune of US$18 billion (S$22.9 billion), along with a promise to implement new age restriction safeguards over the next decade, some experts see this as a win for governments. Since these safeguards will be available, introducing the same measures in other markets is now in the interests of the social media giant, some experts told CNA. Whether it will do so remains to be seen, they added. The requirements for Meta to change some of its product features may apply only to the US market, but it will likely start receiving requests to apply similar considerations elsewhere, said Dr Carol Soon, deputy head of the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) communications and new media department. “This outcome comes on the back of global scrutiny on the harm social media use poses to children and young adults. Different jurisdictions using their regulatory frameworks could impose obligations on Meta to look into similar changes,” she told CNA. The settlements, announced on Aug 26, end a federal trial over allegations that Meta's products harmed children and that the company misled the public about their safety. Apart from the eye-watering sum that Meta agreed to pay US states over the next decade, the company also agreed to implement a swathe of product changes to protect kids online, including default daily time limits and night-time blocks. Technology and digital media lawyer Fong Wei Li, who is also the managing director of Forward Legal, said that typically, when social media companies are made to roll out restrictions in a certain region, they plan for worldwide implementation. “They’ve already put in all that effort into introducing new features or introducing restrictions. All these things take manpower, it takes resources. They’ve already pumped all those resources into ensuring that a certain geographical area is fenced off in terms of restrictions, features, sometimes it’s likely for them to roll it out worldwide,” he said. Maintaining separate practices for enforcing trust and safety across different regions can also be difficult and internally confusing, said Mr Fong. If the standards are applied differently across areas, consumers can take advantage of “regulatory arbitrage” and set up accounts based in places where the stricter standards are not introduced, he added. Regulators in other countries where stricter standards are not introduced may question the platform and lobby for them to be introduced as well, said the lawyer. But Meta might also decide to adopt a different tack, another legal expert said. Dr Dirk Hartung, an assistant professor of law with Singapore Management University (SMU), disagreed that Meta was likely to roll out the restrictions worldwide or even in all US states, noting that Florida and New Mexico were not part of the current agreement. Meta generally does not have a policy of voluntarily extending restrictions, especially if this is likely to harm their business interests, he added. Under the substantial pressure of a trial, some of the restrictions Meta agreed to in the settlement will cut into the audience relevant to the ads they run, Dr Hartung noted. “Given Meta’s historical strategy, they are likely to take all legal measures to limit the impact of these restrictions and will hope for many kids convincing their parents not to enact or follow up on these new restrictions,” he said, adding that he would be “very surprised” if Meta went beyond what they agreed to. “They might decide to roll out some of these restrictions like content-policing and age verification on a global stage, but they will not do so with any measures meaningfully impacting user engagement.” Meta did not answer CNA's questions on whether it will roll out safeguards for children in Singapore or in the region, with a spokesperson pointing to a post on its website calling on TikTok and YouTube to join it in supporting teens. In an update on its website after the settlement, Meta stressed that teens move fluidly between many apps every day. "All platforms should empower parents and support teens by putting the same measures in place, because we know that when teens are restricted on one app, they simply move to another," it said in the post. It urged TikTok and YouTube to join them in adopting the new standards "for meaningful progress to happen". WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR OTHER PLATFORMS? Whatever Meta chooses to do, the landmark settlement puts pressure on other social media platforms to implement similar measures, experts said. For example, the settlement will be made over 10 years and part of it will be paid only if other social media companies agree to settlements in the future, said Dr Soon. This pressure adds to the ongoing lawsuits facing YouTube, TikTok and Snap, she added. “This is the beginning of what could be a reparation era for social media companies.” According to the agreement, the last 30 per cent of the US$18 billion, or about US$5.3 billion, will be released only after two conditions are met – for YouTube and TikTok to implement similar measures including a one-hour daily limit, as well as for each to match half of the 30 per cent figure. The landmark settlement signals that the threat of liability can lead to product changes for tech companies like Meta, said Nanyang Technological University’s (NTU) Assistant Professor Andrew Yee. Other companies that rely on similar features and business models will consider what changes their own products need to ward off regulatory pressure and liability, he added. He also noted that YouTube and TikTok implementing similar measures is one of the conditions for this settlement, which means the offer is already tied to other companies also making these changes. This settlement will inform future litigation and regulation, which would apply to other companies, said SMU’s Dr Hartung, adding that Meta’s competitors, like those behind YouTube, TikTok and Snap, have shown very similar behaviour in the past. These other companies will likely want to settle their cases too, he said. They would have a hard time arguing that the restrictions Meta agreed to will not be workable for them, added Dr Hartung. The US case is unlikely to spawn more legal trials against social media companies elsewhere, he said, noting that outside of the US, enforcing social media regulations through a trial is unusual. Most jurisdictions, including Australia, the European Union and the United Kingdom, have already passed relevant regulations that safeguard young people online, said Dr Hartung. Instead, this case and other similar ones in the US all indicate the growing awareness of the harms caused by social media as a business, he said. “While unlikely to itself trigger more trials, it does express a general sentiment of regulators and the general population to regulate this behaviour. I am certain that these countries will enforce their legislation rather strictly as this seems to align not just with the rule of law but with the general sentiment of their population,” he said. Nevertheless, Mr Fong noted that other social media companies might not react to Meta's settlement because there is no guidance from the courts. Because the case concluded with a settlement, there is no resulting written judgment that would have clearly spelled out what the platform was liable for, he said. In agreeing to settle, Meta denied any wrongdoing. The total payout also represents about three to four months of profit and about one month of revenue. A court judgment can be used as a precedent, and may have put pressure on other social media platforms to follow suit, the technology and digital media lawyer added. But without a written judgment, there is no visibility on whether what Meta allegedly did is actually against the law, said Mr Fong. As such, he added that other platforms may stick to the status quo. HOW SIGNIFICANT ARE META'S PROMISED MEASURES? In the US settlement, Meta agreed to, over the next decade, restrict teenagers' use of Facebook and Instagram to two hours a day and block all usage from midnight to 6am, in the absence of parental consent. These limits could be tightened if Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube adopt similar terms. Meta will also disable most push notifications to teenage users during school hours of 8am to 3pm and enhance measures to prevent children from accessing age-restricted content. Teens will be able to choose a non-algorithmic feed and turn off autoplay. They will also be blocked from using extreme makeup filters, and will not see the numbers of likes and reactions on posts by default. While the two-hour limit is an attempt to enforce a break from perpetual scrolling, it does not tackle the underlying addictive mechanisms, said Professor Gemma Anne Calvert from NTU’s Nanyang Business School. Disabling notifications during school hours is important because they act as attention cues. This measure will likely work best for pupils whose habit of checking for notifications is still triggered by them, she added. The overnight block is the strongest measure, said Prof Calvert. Adolescence brings a shift in circadian timing, so teenagers are biologically primed to be awake at the hours when these platforms are most rewarding, she added. “Sleep displacement is one of the better-evidenced routes from heavy screen use to low mood, so this measure is hitting a real causal pathway rather than a proxy for one,” she said. For NTU's Asst Prof Yee, the proposed changes are noteworthy because these design changes are more substantive than opt-in features. But since the underlying incentive to maximise engagement has not changed, tech companies may find other features that can also effectively capture engagement and attention, he added, stressing that there is more to be done. On paper, the changes Meta have promised seem significant and will mainly impact how much time young users will spend on the platform, said NUS’ Dr Soon. “These product changes aim to put to rest people’s concerns over the two platforms’ addictiveness and exploitation of young people’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities,” she added. But these requirements will not dramatically change young people’s experiences online in the near future, said Dr Soon. Meta will take up to 10 years to introduce the changes, and their effectiveness is contingent on how effectively it can implement age-gating, or age verification, she added. Countries like Australia that have implemented age bans have flagged persistent gaps in age assurance measures, and the harm young people face stems not only from how much time they spend online but what they are exposed to, said Dr Soon. “The new requirements do not fully address the problem of harmful content and the personalised targeting of users via platform algorithms.” A big part of the settlement puts what Meta was already doing voluntarily into writing, Dr Hartung noted. This includes special accounts for teenagers, default settings that favoured privacy, content control, age restrictions and nudges to take a break, he added. The public learned during the trial that Meta was internally aware that many of these settings did not work or affect users meaningfully, with less than 0.2 per cent to 2 per cent of users using these features, he noted. Other elements like the time limit and the night-time block are more meaningful, said Dr Hartung. “Whether that is enough to counter teens’ creativity to circumvent them and Meta’s financial incentives to make that possible, will remain to be seen.”