Introduction
In this update from London law firm Taylor Hampton Solicitors, we discuss a major case involving social media giant Meta. It raises issues about the use of social media in our society, and it is a concern that is becoming more and more prominent as new instances of social media abuse arise.
Meta has agreed a settlement for up to $18bn over a US lawsuit concerning protection of children on their platforms Instagram and Facebook but admits no wrongdoing.
This follows a recent finding by a Judge in New Mexico that Meta was a “public nuisance” and had harmful effects on people akin to air pollution, a decision which Meta intends to appeal.
The Case: State of California v. Meta Platforms Inc.
The landmark lawsuit People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms Inc. was filed on 24 October 2023, and recently went to trial on 18 August 2026 in Oakland, California. The plaintiffs, 29 states represented by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, sued the defendants, Meta Platforms and its subsidiary, Instagram LLC, for violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
The central argument was that Meta, through its social media services, unfairly targets young users to boost engagement at their expense. This is pursued under three authorities:
- Under COPPA, Meta is accused of knowingly collecting the personal data of millions of under-13 year olds without providing notice to parents, nor asking for parental consent.
- Through California State Claims, the plaintiffs argue that Meta deployed unlawful and fraudulent business practices in using features to exploit young people for engagement (Unfair Competition Law), as well as making misleading public statements on the safety and addictiveness of their platforms (False Advertising Law).
- Through Multistate Consumer Protection Claims, the remaining 28 co-plaintiff states sue under similar laws, alleging that safety risks were downplayed and products were designed to create compulsive, addictive cycles of use among non-adults.
Meta’s Section 230 Defence
In response, Meta attempted to rely upon Section 230 immunity to dismiss these claims of a maliciously addictive design. This is a section from the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which generally protects social media sites against being responsible for the content posted by their users (“third parties”). They appealed to the court arguing that any mental health or compulsive issues gained by young users were the result of user-generated content, and under Section 230, they should not be held liable for the posts, nor their effects.
The Court rejected Meta’s appeal in August 2026, finding that Section 230 was to be used as a defence to liability at trial, but did not constitute an “immunity from suit”.
In order to seek to undermine Meta’s ability to use Section 230, the plaintiffs structured their argument around the defects in Meta’s products, rather than their conduct. For example, Meta-built design mechanisms such as autoplay, infinite scroll and push notifications can be clearly tied to Meta’s software engineers, rather than any third party.
The Settlement
Meta agreed the settlement to resolve the case for up to $18bn. It also agreed to the introduction of certain guidelines for teenage users, such as daily limits and night-time blocks. In approving the settlement, the presiding judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, commented that the outcome “reflects a fair, reasonable, comprehensive, and good faith approach not only to provide monetary relief, but importantly, to change conduct in a way that attempts to meaningfully address the negative impacts of the social media platforms at issue”.
The settlement represents Meta’s largest payment to date arising from litigation concerning child safety and, notwithstanding the fact the settlement precludes any Court finding as to whether Meta’s design choices were maliciously addictive, hopefully represents a significant and much needed step towards greater accountability for social media platforms.
How Taylor Hampton Can Help
Although this case is taking place in the US, the underlying issues of children’s data privacy and platform accountability have equivalent protections in UK law.
If you have concerns about how a platform has impacted upon your child, our expert privacy team can advise you on your options. To enquire, please contact us on 0207 427 5970 or at enquiries@taylorhampton.co.uk.
To review our media and data protection services, see HERE.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to provide general information only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. The law and procedural rules may change, and specific advice should always be obtained based on the facts of your individual case.