What smart people are saying about Meta's settlement

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives to the Los Angeles Superior Court at United States Court House on February 18, 2026.

Meta agreed to put greater restrictions on teen users on Wednesday.

Jill Connelly/Getty Images Meta settled a teen social media addiction lawsuit with states for about $18 billion.

Some experts called the deal shrewd, saying Meta avoided potentially massive damages.

Critics say the deal is too weak and its teen protections could prove difficult to enforce.

Attorneys and analysts are divided on whether Meta made the right move.

The social media giant on Wednesday settled with a group of states that sued the company in 2023 and alleged that it had designed its social media platforms to be addictive to teenagers.

Included in the settlement are a slew of restrictions for teen users of Instagram and Facebook.

If the federal judge overseeing the case approves the settlement, teen users will be limited to two hours of scrolling per day, will be unable to scroll at night, and won't get notifications during the school day.

Also in the settlement is around $18 billion for 47 states, the District of Columbia, and several American territories, to be paid out by Meta in installments over the next decade.

Around $5 billion of that sum is contingent upon YouTube and TikTok also coughing up billions and instituting similar controls for teen users.

Meta and the attorneys general struck the deal less than two weeks after the trial began.

Here's what smart people are saying about Meta's landmark social media settlement.

Ari Cohn, First Amendment lawyer Cohn, a First Amendment lawyer in Chicago, called the settlement a "shrewd business move, but awful for free speech." Cohn said that by calling on YouTube and TikTok to institute similar restrictions, Meta is "attempting regulatory capture" by setting a standard it hopes rival social media giants will follow.