Meta and the billion-dollar settlement that is not a conviction

Meta has agreed to pay. A great deal. Up to 16.7 billion dollars, to be paid over ten years, with part of the sum contingent on other platforms joining the settlement, to settle the case brought by a coalition of US attorneys general against Facebook and Instagram. But there is one word that, in the Italian coverage of the story, risks being overlooked: civil.

The settlement, which has yet to be approved by the court, effectively brings to a close a civil case in which Mark Zuckerberg’s company was accused of designing its platforms in such a way as to encourage compulsive behaviour amongst minors and of having downplayed or misled users and institutions regarding the risks associated with using social media. Meta will pay and make a number of changes. However, it does not admit any fault and, above all, it has not been found guilty of a criminal offence. This distinction is not merely a technicality for pedantic lawyers. It is the crux of the matter.

The US authorities have acted as civil plaintiffs, seeking financial penalties, restitution and injunctions. There is no criminal charge against Meta, nor, in this case, a request for the conviction of its executives. California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, in his opening arguments, put it quite bluntly: “This is not a damages case”. The aim is to secure, to use the American term, civil penalties, restitution and the rectification of practices deemed misleading.

In the United States, corporate criminal liability is a different matter altogether: it involves different standards of proof and consequences, ranging from convictions and fines to the potential personal liability of directors. Here, however, we are dealing with civil sanctions and compliance. This is a substantial difference, not just a footnote.

The settlement reflects this approach exactly. Meta avoids fully addressing the risk of an unfavourable judgement, whilst the states secure funding and, above all, immediately enforceable obligations. However, no one should write that Zuckerberg has been convicted of a criminal offence or that Meta has admitted criminal liability. That has not happened.

The cost of the agreement is not merely financial. Meta will have to make concrete changes to how Facebook and Instagram operate for users under 18, with a set of rules applicable nationwide.

In brief, the measures include a pre-set daily limit of two hours’ use, which can only be changed by a parent, and a night-time block between midnight and 6 am, which can also be lifted by a parent. There will also be restrictions on notifications: no notifications for under-18s between 10 pm and 7 am, with some exceptions for direct messages and other cases, during school hours.

Teenagers must also be able to choose non-personalised feeds, thereby opting out of content sorting based on profiling. Meta must also continue to review and strengthen existing safety measures for minors and must respond to 90 per cent of reports from teenagers regarding potentially harmful content within six hours. Furthermore, the count of ‘likes’ and reactions will be hidden by default.

Then there is the aesthetic aspect: an end to beauty filters for minors. And the even more sensitive issue of age verification: Meta will have to take measures to identify and remove users under the age of 13, as well as introduce new tools for parents to monitor and protect their children’s online activity.

This is a package that goes far beyond a mere billion-dollar cheque. US states are securing structural changes to the product: fewer notifications, reduced night-time usage, greater parental control, more options to opt out of algorithmic personalisation, and strengthened age verification systems.

Meta claims it will face significant legal costs in connection with the settlement. What is certain is that, had the case gone to trial, the company would have risked heavier penalties as well as further changes to how the platforms operate, including alterations to the way ‘likes’ are counted and to infinite scrolling.

Politically, therefore, the outcome is far from insignificant. The Meta case sets an important precedent in the areas of civil protection of minors, privacy, consumer protection and platform liability. However, it does not establish that an algorithm which has negative consequences for a minor automatically amounts to a criminal offence.

This is precisely the distinction that should not be overlooked whilst the settlement is being either celebrated or vilified. Meta is paying a huge sum, accepting new rules and making changes to part of its product. But it is not being penalised. As for the rest, yes: 16.7 billion is a lot. But even in the United States, where the bill can be astronomical, a civil penalty remains just that.