By George Kormas, MD, Head of the Helpline of the Greek Safer Internet Centre

A trial against Meta began but was later halted in California federal court, after 29 states accused the parent company of Facebook and Instagram of making its platforms addictive for minors.

The states were seeking potentially enormous damages, but the case was ultimately settled for up to $16.68 billion.

The main allegations were that:

1. The platforms are designed to keep teenagers’ attention.
2. Meta misled the public about the risks associated with their use.
3. It collected data from children under 13 without parental consent, in violation of federal law.

Before this particular trial, courts had already issued rulings against Meta focusing on the addictive design of Facebook and Instagram and its effects on minors. In New Mexico, Meta was ordered to pay $942 million following a legal battle with the state over children’s exposure to risks and inadequate protection.

In California, Meta was found liable for negligence in the design of Instagram and ordered to pay $4.2 million in a case involving the addictive use of the platform and psychological harm to a young user. New Mexico also has a separate case against Meta, apart from the trial concerning children’s safety and mental health that resulted in the $942 million judgment. That case concerns the protection of personal data and other consumer harms.

Florida has a separate case against Meta concerning the impact of Facebook and Instagram on minors. Therefore, New Mexico and Florida are not part of the settlement with Meta and are continuing their legal battles, while Texas reached its own $1 billion settlement with Meta.

The out-of-court settlement

However, the trial that could have created another important legal precedent concerning the addictive behavior of social-media algorithms and the risks they pose to children never reached completion: Meta and the states reached a settlement.

How the states, which represent their citizens, can settle such a significant family-related issue for financial compensation and move on is something for all of us to judge. It resembles a form of compensation.

Under the settlement, Meta admitted neither liability nor any violation of the law.

In brief, the Meta settlement in the California federal case provides the following measures for minors:

• A two-hour daily usage limit for Facebook and Instagram.
• A ban on use between midnight and 6 a.m., unless there is parental consent.
• Notifications disabled during school hours.
• Enhanced age verification and removal of users under 13.
• Stronger parental controls and default safety settings.
• Hidden likes and restrictions on certain filters and features for minors.
• Independent monitoring of Meta’s compliance.

These measures apply only to Meta (Facebook and Instagram), not to other social networks, and will be implemented across the United States.

Europe has already turned its attention to the algorithm

The issue is not limited to the United States. Just weeks before the U.S. settlement, the European Commission took an even more significant step: it began examining not merely the content on these platforms, but their very design.

Greece has now announced a minimum age of 15, to take effect on January 1, 2027, with responsibility for age verification transferred to the platforms.

Beyond the court rulings and settlements in the United States, Europe’s regulatory frameworks under both the GDPR and the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the forthcoming bans in several European countries, including Greece, one thing is certain: the companies behind these platforms have not taken any meaningful measures to protect children and have shown no willingness to comply with the law or allow transparency into their algorithms—particularly now that they are incorporating AI to make their algorithms even more addictive and even more targeted.

The implementation of COPPA

One example, in my view, is particularly revealing of their long-standing intentions.

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was passed by Congress in 1998 and prohibited the collection and processing of data belonging to children under 13 without parental consent, taking effect in 2000.

Twenty-six years after COPPA, how is it possible that children under 13 are still on these platforms?

A recent EU Kids Online survey across 19 European countries found that 34% of children aged 9–11 said they had a social-media profile. In Greece, research conducted by our center found that 70% of children had created a social-media profile before the age of 13.

It is therefore clear that the companies are knowingly, systematically and without adequate oversight failing to enforce the law. Everyone knows that children under 13 enter social networks using false ages—except, apparently, the companies themselves.

They would rather face lawsuits, pay huge fines and suffer public criticism than enforce the law.

The risks for children

Citizens are now increasingly convinced not only of the addictive behaviors encouraged by algorithms among users, particularly children, but also of the risks they face—from sexual harassment, cyberbullying and encouragement of suicide to harmful role models and behaviors.

What is at stake that allows these companies to continue ignoring even the most basic protections despite widespread criticism?

For these companies, minors are not only valuable consumers but also tireless producers of data. Data is money for these companies.

Data and its economic value

Research by the Children’s Commissioner for England estimated that teenagers aged 11–16 made an average of 26 posts per day, or around 9,500 posts per teenager each year, excluding comments and other activity.

More data means more profits. And when it comes to consumption, the financial gains for these companies increase dramatically.

In the European Union, according to Eurostat data for 2025, 84% of people aged 16–24 made online purchases.

An international study covering the United States, United Kingdom, China and the United Arab Emirates estimated that children aged 8–15 influence around 27% of non-essential household spending and 29% of digital purchases.

A 2022 U.S. study estimated that advertising revenue attributable to minors accounted for approximately 41.4% of Snapchat’s revenue, 35.0% of TikTok’s, 27.3% of YouTube’s and 15.9% of Instagram’s.

Finally, according to an estimate cited by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), some teenagers may be exposed to as many as 1,260 advertisements per day in the digital environment.

The cycle of consumption

In conclusion, the more time a child or teenager spends on social media, the more data they generate, the more advertisements they receive and the more they themselves purchase—while also influencing their families’ purchasing decisions.

The objective is achieved by creating addictive behaviors, collecting data extensively and now using AI, while also creating powerful consumer patterns designed to encourage imitation and consumption.

The risks social networks pose to children are now treated as collateral damage, while fines and powerful lobbying efforts are treated as a cost of doing business.

Protecting children costs many billions—not only to social-media companies, but to the entire online retail ecosystem.

Because social networks, among other things, shape people into consumers, encouraging them to consume and to feel good through consumption, whatever the cost.

To end on a slightly more optimistic note, the positive development is that governments and the European Union have now changed their approach and increasingly regard these platforms themselves as primarily responsible for complying with rules protecting minors.

At the same time, societies as a whole are increasingly aware of the risks and are seeking help to protect their children.

The goal is not to return children to a world without the internet. Social networks provide communication, information, creativity and access to communities.

The question is whether this access should be organized around an algorithm whose economic success depends on keeping users on the platform for as long as possible.

I believe the time has come for these companies to face such pressure that their failure to act in the public interest could seriously and irreparably undermine their position.

You cannot entrust a child’s protection to the same algorithm that makes more money the more time that child spends on it.

Banning children from specific platforms below a certain age serves the public interest and is now an unavoidable course of action.