Meta Platforms agreed Monday to pay up to $18 billion to settle lawsuits brought by a bipartisan coalition of U.S. states over claims that Facebook and Instagram were designed to addict children and harm their mental health. According to officials, the settlement resolves a multistate lawsuit and includes guaranteed payments over 10 years, avoiding a landmark trial in California federal court.

Under the terms of the settlement, Meta will pay the states up to $18 billion over a 10-year period, with $12.7 billion guaranteed regardless of other platforms’ actions, and about $5 billion contingent on similar commitments from competitors such as YouTube, TikTok, and Snap, according to officials familiar with the agreement. The funds are designated for youth online safety programs and related state priorities, rather than direct compensation to individual users, Meta said in a statement released Monday.

The settlement resolves a multistate lawsuit led by a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general, involving between 48 and 52 states plus the District of Columbia and several territories, depending on the source.

The original 2023 suit was filed by 29 states alleging that Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive for children and teens, contributing to mental health harms including anxiety, depression, and body-image issues. Additional states and territories later joined, creating a near-nationwide settlement, according to court records.

The agreement ends a landmark trial scheduled in California federal court, which would have featured testimony from senior Meta executives including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, sources confirmed. Meta resolved related claims across multiple state groupings under a single framework, capping its total financial exposure at $18 billion over the decade.

As part of the settlement, Meta will implement specific safety measures for users aged 13 to 17 on Facebook and Instagram. These include a default two-hour daily time limit on app use, which only parents can modify or disable, officials said. Teen accounts will also receive prompts after 15 minutes of continuous use encouraging breaks, and a “school mode” will reduce or mute push notifications during typical school hours, such as 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The agreement mandates “night mode” or overnight blocks that prevent teen access by default between midnight and 6 a.m., with the possibility of broader restrictions if other platforms adopt similar policies. Additionally, like and reaction counts will be hidden by default on posts made by or visible to teen users to reduce social comparison pressures, according to sources familiar with the settlement.

Meta will offer an optional non-personalized feed for teen users that does not rely on engagement algorithms or behavioral profiling, which the company must roll out within four months of the settlement taking effect. The company also agreed to limit recommendation and targeting systems aimed at teens, including disabling features that promote potentially harmful or addictive content, officials said.

Enhanced age assurance measures are a key component of the deal. Meta will deploy technical age-checking systems and policy enforcement to prevent children under 13 from accessing Facebook or Instagram and to restrict teen access to inappropriate content. Major age-assurance requirements must be implemented within one year, with verification and audit provisions allowing state oversight to ensure compliance, according to court documents.

The multistate lawsuits alleged that Meta knowingly designed addictive features such as infinite scroll and algorithmic feeds to increase engagement among minors while disregarding internal research on potential harms. Attorneys general accused the company of violating consumer protection and child safety laws by failing to warn users and by misrepresenting the risks of its platforms to young people. The case attracted national attention as one of the highest-profile legal challenges to social media’s impact on children.

In its statement, Meta denied wrongdoing and did not admit liability but expressed commitment to improving safety for young users. State officials described the settlement as a historic agreement that will reshape how teens interact with social media. The deal also sets a benchmark for other platforms, as part of Meta’s payment is contingent on rivals adopting similar safeguards and making comparable payments to states.

The settlement is structured as a consent judgment, allowing courts and attorneys general to enforce the terms if Meta fails to implement the promised changes. It also consolidates multiple lawsuits into a single framework, providing a coordinated approach to addressing youth online safety across the United States.

The broader implications of the case include establishing new regulatory expectations for social media companies regarding child safety and mental health. The settlement’s enforcement mechanisms and transparency requirements aim to ensure ongoing compliance. The multistate coalition and Meta will oversee implementation, with periodic reporting and audits to monitor progress.

A federal trial began Tuesday as 29 U.S. states sued Meta, alleging the company addicted children to Instagram and Facebook. According to the states’ 233-page complaint, Meta designed the platforms to exploit young users for profit by using addictive features that contributed to mental health harms such as anxiety, depression, and suicide.

The states allege Meta orchestrated a “scheme to exploit young users for profit” by designing Instagram and Facebook with addictive features that contribute to mental health issues among children and teens, including anxiety, depression, insomnia, and suicide, according to court documents and statements from the attorneys general involved.

The lawsuit, filed in October 2023, centers on a 233-page federal complaint brought by a coalition of 29 states, led by California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, as part of a multidistrict litigation effort.

The complaint accuses Meta of deliberately engineering the platforms to “hook” young users and prolong their engagement, which officials say adversely affects their well-being and violates consumer protection laws. The states contend that Meta misled the public by downplaying or concealing the mental health risks associated with its social media services. New Mexico’s attorney general’s office detailed how the company’s design allegedly degrades children’s sense of self-worth and physical safety, linking it to increased exposure to exploitation, according to court filings.

Lawyers for the states also assert that Meta concealed internal research demonstrating Instagram’s addictive impact on teenagers and its harmful effects on their mental health. The complaint alleges that Meta knowingly misrepresented the safety of its platforms, including the effectiveness of safety features and the prevalence of harmful content, to both the public and young users. These practices, officials say, violated state consumer protection and fraud statutes by withholding material information about the risks posed to children and teens.

The lawsuit further claims that Meta engaged in illegal data collection practices by regularly gathering personal information from children under 13 without parental consent, violating federal and state privacy laws, including the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The attorneys general argue that Meta’s data practices breach laws such as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and analogous statutes in other states. Separate lawsuits filed by Florida and other jurisdictions also allege unlawful data collection and privacy violations affecting minors.

Meta has rejected the allegations, disputing claims that it designed its platforms to be addictive or that it sought to hook children. In court filings, the company argued that the states’ claims exceed existing legal frameworks and emphasized its efforts to promote teen safety and well-being. Meta’s motions to dismiss, which cited First Amendment protections and Section 230 immunity, were denied in June 2026 for the 29-state case, allowing the trial to proceed. The company has pointed to its safety tools and parental controls as evidence that it does not intentionally endanger children, though state officials maintain these measures are inadequate or misrepresented.

The litigation seeks billions of dollars in damages and injunctive relief that would require Meta to alter or eliminate features such as “like” counts and infinite scroll, which the states say are central to addictive use patterns among youth. New Mexico has proposed a $3.7 billion fine and extensive design changes, including universal age verification, guardian-linked child accounts, de-encryption of children’s messages, and the appointment of an independent child-safety monitor for five years. Attorneys general from multiple states also seek court declarations that Meta’s platforms constitute a public nuisance with respect to youth harms, along with requirements to fund large-scale abatement plans.

Additional related lawsuits focus on Meta’s alleged role in facilitating child sexual abuse material (CSAM), online solicitation, and human trafficking. These filings document how exploitative content and connections are amplified by Facebook and Instagram, contributing to the risks faced by children online, according to court records and statements from state officials.

The 29-state coalition is part of a broader legal effort involving 41 to 42 jurisdictions, including Washington, D.C., with 33 states joining the original federal complaint filed in the Northern District of California. The coordinated legal action was publicly announced on October 24, 2023, following a multistate investigation into the impact of Meta’s social media platforms on youth. A federal judge in California ruled in October 2024 that Meta must face these lawsuits, rejecting earlier attempts by the company to avoid liability. The trial marks a significant test of youth social-media litigation, with key addiction and concealment claims now moving forward.

The withdrawal came on July 22, 2026, just five days before the scheduled start of jury selection for the trial in Los Angeles, according to court filings and statements from the teen’s attorneys. The 15-year-old plaintiff, identified as R.K.C. in legal documents, had already reached confidential settlements with TikTok, Snap, and YouTube in related personal injury claims alleging that their platforms contributed to depression, anxiety, and addictive behaviors. Meta Platforms was the sole remaining defendant in the case at the time of withdrawal, halting what was expected to be a bellwether trial testing claims against social media companies over youth mental health harms.

Attorney Emily Jeffcott, representing R.K.C., said the decision to drop the lawsuit was driven by the teen’s desire to focus on recovery and avoid the psychological strain of a prolonged trial.

Jeffcott told reporters that the teen was “satisfied” with the settlements reached with other defendants and cited concerns about the emotional toll of testifying about mental health struggles and social media use in a high-profile courtroom. The legal team described the withdrawal as a personal and health-driven choice rather than a concession on the broader arguments about social media design and its effects on minors.

Meta issued a public statement asserting that the claims “never held up” and framed the withdrawal as vindication of its position. A Meta spokesperson told the BBC that the allegations were “unfounded” and confirmed that R.K.C. received no financial payment from Meta in connection with dropping the lawsuit. This distinguished Meta’s stance from the confidential settlements reached with TikTok, Snap, and YouTube, which did not disclose terms. Meta has consistently argued in court that accusations of intentionally harming children or creating unlawfully addictive products lack merit and pointed to safety features and parental controls as evidence of its efforts to protect young users.

The lawsuit filed by R.K.C. in California state court in Los Angeles alleged that Meta’s platforms, including Instagram and Facebook, were intentionally designed with addictive features such as endless scrolling, auto-playing videos, frequent notifications, and algorithmic recommendations that made it difficult for minors to disengage. The complaint claimed these design elements contributed to the teen’s depression, anxiety, sleep loss, and compulsive social media use resembling addiction. The suit placed Meta’s conduct within the context of a broader youth mental health crisis, linking platform features to increased risks of self-harm, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation among young users. The plaintiff sought monetary damages and aimed to pressure social media companies to change product designs to reduce addictive qualities and improve safety warnings.

The case was part of a larger wave of litigation brought by teenagers, school districts, and state attorneys general against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap, alleging that their platforms caused or contributed to mental health harms in minors. R.K.C.’s lawsuit was considered a bellwether personal injury suit within this coordinated litigation, intended to test legal theories about whether engagement-driven features could be treated similarly to tobacco or gambling products under personal injury law. The trial was scheduled to begin on July 27, 2026, with jury selection and opening statements expected that week.

The withdrawal of R.K.C.’s lawsuit did not affect a separate March 2026 jury verdict in Los Angeles, in which a different plaintiff, K.G.M., secured a $6 million award after a jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for designing addictive products that harmed a young user. That case was the first social media addiction trial to reach a jury verdict on alleged harms to a minor and remains a significant precedent in ongoing litigation. Jurors in the K.G.M. case reviewed internal company documents, expert testimony, and the plaintiff’s account of her mental health struggles linked to endless scrolling and algorithmic recommendations.

Legal analysts note that Meta continues to face hundreds of related lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that its products harm children’s mental health. While the halted trial provided Meta a temporary reprieve, the broader litigation landscape remains active. Confidential settlements with TikTok, Snap, and YouTube suggest some platforms may prefer early resolution rather than jury trials, though details and any resulting product changes have not been disclosed. Meanwhile, school districts and state attorneys general are pursuing separate suits seeking damages and injunctive relief to force design changes, warning labels, or age-related restrictions on certain features.

The combination of the K.G.M. verdict and R.K.C.’s withdrawal illustrates the complex and evolving nature of social media harm litigation. Plaintiffs have obtained at least one substantial jury verdict, while Meta has avoided a potentially expansive trial in this case. The broader legal debate over the responsibility of social media companies for youth mental health continues in courts across the United States.