Meta’s teen safety campaign hurts TikTok, YouTube, Snap
Meta Platforms Inc. is engaging in a public pressure campaign aimed at compelling its social media competitors to implement safeguards on their platforms to limit teen usage. This initiative follows a landmark $18 billion settlement with US states that mandates the introduction of new safety features on Facebook and Instagram. The deal encompasses a notable and substantial incentive: a $5.3 billion segment of Meta’s payout over the forthcoming decade is contingent upon whether its industry rivals undertake similar platform modifications and consent to make analogous contributions to state initiatives aimed at assisting children. TikTok, Alphabet Inc.’s YouTube, and Snap Inc. have thus far maintained a public silence. There exists no legal compulsion for them to offer concessions; however, legal analysts and industry watchers suggest that the influence exerted by Meta and state solicitors general may compel them to reconsider their stance. “There is definitely a very big pressure campaign, and the question is going to be whether competitors within this space see it within their interest,” said Kate Ruane.
In a public callout to TikTok and YouTube on Wednesday, which included a plan to publish open letters in newspapers, Meta announced its intention to establish a “new industry standard.” And “For meaningful progress to happen, we urge our peers to join us,” the company said. As part of the agreement, in which Meta denies wrongdoing, the company stated it will implement a series of changes aimed at enhancing protections for users under 18. Daily time limits will be imposed on scrolling activities on Facebook and Instagram, and access to these platforms will be restricted during overnight hours. Young users will also be prohibited from receiving notifications during school hours and from viewing the number of “likes” on posts. All of these settings will be activated by default for US users who register for teen accounts and can only be modified with parental consent. Danielle Citron characterised the changes outlined in the agreement as “weak sauce” in light of the extensive nature of the issue. She emphasised that children are skilled at circumventing age restrictions, and the modifications appear to lack substantial enforcement, as they merely permit parents to disable default settings. “Are YouTube and TikTok going to follow suit?” she said. “They might, because they might think they’re not giving up very much.”
In the interim, provided that Meta implements these modifications while its competitors refrain from doing so, it may encounter a variety of business consequences, potentially leading to increased traffic toward Meta’s rivals or alternative platforms entirely. “This will force a bit more of a diversification of the market,” stated Sonia Livingstone. Meta has minimised the potential business implications of the changes, highlighting during a call with reporters on Wednesday that it generates minimal revenue from teen users, who possess limited spending power and contribute less than 1 percent to its total revenue. Concurrently, the company indicated that it would face a competitive disadvantage if its competitors do not adhere to the same regulations. Meta stated during a call with reporters on Wednesday that the ideal solution to this issue would have been for Congress to pass legislation, thereby binding all tech platforms to the same regulations. Meta has actively opposed significant bipartisan legislation, including the Kids Online Safety Act.
Ongoing litigation may further amplify the pressures faced by other social media giants. The case that settled this week was directed solely at Meta; however, numerous individual states are pursuing action against TikTok, with some also targeting Google and Snap. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office played a pivotal role in the case against Meta, expressed confidence that a comprehensive solution across the industry will emerge. “We insist that it’ll happen – it’ll happen one way or another,” he said during an interview. During a call with reporters on Wednesday, Bonta refrained from commenting on the possibility of changes by Meta’s rivals or whether discussions with them were in progress. California is one of approximately a dozen states that have initiated legal action against TikTok due to concerns regarding child safety. Bonta expressed optimism that the leadership at the company, along with YouTube and Snap, will “come to the table and commit to these changes going forward.” And “We’re willing to take additional steps as well, if they don’t do it voluntarily,” he said. According to Matthew Bergman, founder of the Seattle-based Social Media Victims Law Center, Meta’s settlement may provide states with a strategic advantage in ongoing legal battles. “Kids use these platforms interchangeably. If you’re going to improve safety on one, it has to be an across-the-board change,” he said. “I think Meta’s pressure will have something to do with it, but it will also have a tremendous impact on the litigation. How can TikTok say it’s unreasonable to limit screen time if Meta has already done that?”
All four companies continue to contend with over 3,000 personal injury lawsuits initiated by or on behalf of adolescents, who assert that the platforms are addictive and have played a role in their mental health challenges. They are also facing over 1,000 lawsuits from school districts alleging that the platforms constitute a public nuisance. The collective of solicitors representing personal injury cases expressed approval of the modifications that Meta has committed to introducing for younger users on its platform; however, they indicated that these changes do not significantly impact their clients’ situations. They emphasised that this week’s agreement does not provide restitution to the youth they represent for the damages they claim arise from the compulsive use of platforms engineered to be addictive. “Our clients are seeking accountability for specific, individual harms – including depression, self-harm, eating disorders and death – that we allege were the foreseeable result of choices these platforms made,” they said. “Nothing in this settlement changes that, and nothing in it speaks for our clients.”
