Zuck got cold feet and played it safe, just like the real tech tycoons

It was, at the time, the trial of the century, and in fact they did not wish to see it through to the end. In Meta v. Everyone, Zuckerberg decided to settle – a prudent move, and a wise one at that. Among the privileges of the tech-rich: facing extremely high-profile court cases with fairly predictable outcomes, whilst having the immediate option to sidestep the judgement. You can recognise a truly great lawyer on the phone: this profession is never quite as one imagines it from watching American films; real (civil) trials actually take place behind closed doors, involving hours of discussion, a market of haggling over the final figure that defines the settlement, leaving everyone dissatisfied. A lawyer is someone capable of cutting the bitter pill into small pieces and making you swallow it bit by bit.

On 26 August 2026, Meta settled a legal dispute with a large group of US attorneys general, in which Facebook and Instagram were accused of being addictive to young people, designed with features that encourage compulsive use, of exposing young people to mental health risks, and of collecting data from children under the age of thirteen. The settlement covers 47 states, whilst Texas has separately reached an agreement with Meta worth over a billion dollars, with similar measures to protect minors – adding the two figures together, the settlements with the states therefore exceed 18 billion dollars. Another detail (and a rather amusing one): Mark, like everyone else, wants to pay in instalments – ten of them, one per year. With an ‘all or nothing’ clause: one instalment is conditional upon the other major rogue platforms adopting equivalent obligations.

Next come the changes to products – a real blow for our capitalist. Meanwhile, a new era of American adolescence has dawned: for users aged between 13 and 17, Facebook and Instagram will have to have a default limit of two hours a day. This is a cumulative limit across Meta’s platforms, even though for teenagers Facebook is for dinosaurs – a wax museum – and they’ll never go there. At night, you sleep – and that’s that: Night Access Mode blocks access to the platforms from 00:00 to 06:00. No access at school either. School Mode: from 8.00 to 15.00, Monday to Friday, from 15 August to 15 June – notifications are disabled. If you stay connected for more than 15 minutes, a warning must appear; at 60 and 90 minutes of daily usage, ‘productive pauses’ must be enforced. Prompts: ‘You’re overdoing it’ (1). ‘Still here?’ (2)

But in my view, the real nail in the coffin is something else: within four months, Meta must offer teenagers the option to choose a non-personalised feed as their home screen – consisting of accounts they follow or friends, and sorted chronologically (the old-style social media as we knew them) – rather than the sequence dictated by the devil. No filters that the agreement defines as ‘Cosmetic Procedure Filters’ – that is, effects that alter or idealise the face in ways akin to cosmetic surgery. A strict age-verification system: Meta must ensure that its ‘show me your ID!’ process works, with pre-set margins of error. The agreement states that Meta must also maintain and improve safeguards against age-inappropriate content, including measures against content relating to bullying, self-harm, eating disorders, nudity and violence; it must limit repeated exposure to certain sensitive categories and prevent teenagers from following, viewing or being contacted by accounts classified as unsuitable for their age. There is also rigorous oversight: at the helm of the system is an independent auditor, with access to the necessary materials, regular reports to the states and the ability to identify weaknesses and request corrective action plans. Meta will have to draw up the plan within thirty days and begin implementing it.

The conclusion is that Zuck got cold feet and is paying far more than 18 billion: the upheaval is total, and his big toy might no longer work: now they’re fishing for kids without any bait. It’s a system that’s now creating a great deal of friction; I reckon that was the aim. Young users will feel worse than if they’d been sent off to a Swiss boarding school, and a question will soon arise – the one that will prevail between these two: is there any point in having these social media platforms at all? Or will they become even more appealing, because what could possibly compare to the thrill of the ban now?