What the settlement left out: Meta can still collect data from kids 

Randolph A Robinson II, University of Illinois Chicago

In August 2026, Meta agreed to one of the largest consumer protection settlements in American history. The settlement resolves claims from 47 states alleging that Meta intentionally designed its Facebook and Instagram platforms to be addictive to young users and harmful to youth mental health.

As part of the settlement, Meta agreed to pay up to US$17.1 billion – approximately 20% of Meta’s 2025 pretax profits – in penalties over the next 10 years. Meta also agreed to implement changes to its platforms for young users, including daily time limits, access restrictions during school hours and late nights, and “productivity breaks” that interrupt scrolling every 60 minutes.

The $17.1 billion penalty and promised changes to the platforms have grabbed the headlines. But, as a law professor who studies social media regulation, I believe that what the settlement does not include will prove more important to youth safety in the long run. The settlement does not restrict Meta from continuing to collect data from young users, from using that data to sell its targeted ads, or from serving those targeted ads to young users.

In short, while Meta agreed to some limited changes to safeguard young users, it also succeeded in protecting its surveillance-based business model.

Meta’s core business is advertising. It is the world’s second-largest digital advertising company by revenue and will soon overtake Google to claim first place. Last year, Meta generated over $200 billion in revenue, up 22% over the prior year.

Meta’s growing revenue comes from delivering more ads to platform users and charging advertisers more for those ads. For Meta, maximizing the amount of time that users spend on its platforms is critical to revenue growth. The more time users spend on Meta’s platforms, the more ads Meta can serve to those users and, consequently, the more money Meta makes.

Meta’s ad business operates on a surveillance model that gives advertisers the ability to serve personalized ads to the users who are most likely to purchase the advertiser’s goods or services. Meta does this by collecting a large amount of data about platform users. This data includes users’ friends, followers and other connections; the websites they visit, the apps they use, the games they play and the purchases they make; their demographics, including education level; the ads they see and how they interact with them; and how they use third parties’ products and services, online or in person.

The recent settlement does not change that incentive structure.

In 2026, Meta has again settled with the government, again paid a penalty and again promised changes. And again, those promises do not restrict it from collecting data and monetizing young users, nor does the settlement restrict Meta from continuing to serve young users targeted ads.

Repeatedly violating the terms of its settlements with the government seems to be an effective strategy for Meta. The company has learned that penalties for doing so are small in comparison with the profits gained through its conduct. This recent settlement looks like more of the same. With this pattern in mind, it is fair to ask whether the settlement will provide meaningful protection for young social media users or just allow Meta to continue with business as usual.

As former FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra stated when dissenting from the FTC’s 2019 settlement, “When companies can violate the law, pay big penalties and still turn a profit while keeping their business model intact, enforcement agencies cannot claim victory.”

I believe this most recent settlement repeats the patterns of the past and continues to leave young users vulnerable on Meta’s platforms.

[Abridged]