Meta settlement overview:
- Who: Meta agreed to a $17.1 billion settlement with California and 28 other states, approved by a federal judge following an advisory jury trial in Oakland.
- Why: The states accused Meta of hiding social media’s risks to teens and prioritizing profit over safety.
- Where: The Meta settlement was approved in California federal court.
- How to get help: If you or your child developed signs of social media addiction before age 18 and were diagnosed with a related mental health condition, you may be eligible to participate in a social media lawsuit.
Meta has agreed to pay up to $17.1 billion to resolve a lawsuit brought by 29 states accusing the company of concealing social media’s harms to teenagers.
According to a court order issued on Aug. 26, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers approved the deal hours after a hearing, ending an advisory jury trial in Oakland as it entered its fifth day.
The Meta lawsuit, filed by California and dozens of other attorneys general, alleged the company prioritized profits over young users’ safety. Meta has denied the allegations.
According to a Law360 report, the deal came together after Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri began testifying on Aug. 25, with the parties telling the judge two hours before the Aug. 26 trial session that they had reached an agreement. The judge said she received the 119-page agreement at 6 a.m. and needed time to review it before discharging the jury.
Under the Meta settlement, the company will pay $12.2 billion over 10 years, with the total potentially rising to $17.1 billion if TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat adopt comparable reforms. The agreement also includes about $459 million to resolve outstanding Cambridge Analytica-related claims by 46 states, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Meta also agreed to a two-hour daily time limit on teen accounts for five years, shrinking to one hour for 10 years if competitors adopt the same terms. It agreed to block teen use from midnight to 6 a.m., with those hours expanding to 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. if competitors adopt the same restriction.
Judge orders Meta to disclose redacted employee chat over teen-safety presentation
A separate order issued the same day details the judge’s concerns over Meta’s handling of attorney-client privilege.
According to the order, the judge ruled Meta had improperly redacted an employee chat and ordered it produced unredacted, finding the material reflected business judgment about litigation risk, not legal advice. “The issue was merely an attorney’s view of generic litigation risk,” the court wrote.
The ruling followed an episode in which the judge admonished Meta after an attorney misstated the privilege standard. States’ counsel then sought a re-review of Meta’s privilege designations, which the judge declined without more evidence.
The chat showed employees discussing removing teen-usage data from a leadership deck to limit executives’ exposure.
According to Law360, states’ counsel used the material to question Mosseri, who appeared taken by surprise by a document showing Instagram’s in-house counsel had removed data from a teen-safety presentation to minimize his litigation exposure risk. Meta’s counsel said the company believed it “had it right” on privilege but would keep reviewing its practices.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers said she disagreed with in-house counsel’s approach to privilege, warning of problems if it continued. An independent auditor will monitor Meta’s compliance, although the consent decree allows Meta to withhold documents it believes are protected by attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
What do you think of the $17.1 billion Meta settlement and the alleged harm done to teenagers? Let us know in the comments.
The states are represented by their respective attorneys general and Megan O’Neill, David Patrick Beglin, Katherine Read and Nayha Arora of the California Department of Justice; Jason Slothouber and Shannon Wells Stevenson of the Colorado Department of Law; John Christian Lewis of the Kentucky Office of the Attorney General’s Office of Consumer Protection; and Mandy K. Wang of the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General.
The Meta lawsuit is People of the State of California, et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-05448-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
Robocall lawsuit investigation: Were you contacted without permission?
September 1, 2026 | Legal News
