Meta agreed on Wednesday to settle the landmark case brought by US state attorneys general over the design of Facebook and Instagram and its effect on teenagers. The trial, which had opened only the week before at the federal courthouse in Oakland, California, was suspended while the agreement is reviewed. A federal judge still has to approve it.

Reporting the same week put the sum at $16.7 billion, $17 billion and about $18 billion. All three numbers are defensible, which is worth unpacking before anything else.

Why the figures differ

Meta’s own statement describes a payment of approximately $18 billion, to be distributed in annual instalments over ten years. Money paid out over a decade is not worth the same as money paid today, and some outlets reported a figure closer to the agreed payment terms — $16.7 billion — rather than the headline total. Meanwhile Meta told investors it expects to book a legal expense of around $10 billion in the third quarter, which is an accounting figure and different again.

The number of states also varies by report, between 29 and 51. That is because two different counts are in play. The combined case that went to trial was brought by a bipartisan group of 29 attorneys general, co-led by California’s Rob Bonta with counterparts from Colorado, New Jersey and Kentucky. The settlement itself reaches much wider — reports describe it as covering 47 or 48 states plus the District of Columbia, and Bonta’s own announcement referred to a coalition of 51 attorneys general.

Of the total, participating states are reported to receive around $12.7 billion, or roughly 70 per cent, to fund youth online safety work and other state priorities.

What the states alleged

The claims were first filed in October 2023. The states accused Meta of violating consumer protection laws and the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act: of designing its platforms to keep young users scrolling, of improperly collecting data from minors, and of publicly downplaying what the company knew about the risks while continuing to build products around engagement.

Meta has consistently denied that its platforms harm children, has pointed to its investment in safety features, and called the states’ claims unsubstantiated. The court filing records that the company denies the allegations and denies any liability to the plaintiffs. There is no admission of wrongdoing in the settlement.

The only senior Meta executive to take the stand was Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, who testified on Tuesday. Mark Zuckerberg had been expected to appear later in the trial. The settlement came the following day.

What actually changes on the apps

For most readers this is the more consequential half of the deal. Under the agreement, Meta commits to:

• daily time limits for teenage users, and blocks on night-time use;
• stronger age assurance measures, intended to keep children off the platforms altogether or away from age-restricted content;
• an option for teenagers to make a non-algorithmic feed — one not personalised by the recommendation system — their default;
• the ability for teenagers to turn off video autoplay;
• additional tools for parents and guardians.

Bonta said Meta had agreed to make substantial changes and to do so within months rather than years. Advocates who have litigated against the industry welcomed the outcome while noting that implementation, not agreement, is where these deals usually succeed or fail — how age assurance is actually done, and whether a non-algorithmic feed is a genuine default or an option buried in a settings menu.

Not the end of it

This settlement resolves the states’ case. It does not resolve the hundreds of lawsuits brought against Meta by individuals, families and school districts, which continue and could produce further financial penalties. Meta denies those claims too.

Two other recent decisions give a sense of the wider exposure. In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google liable for $6 million in damages in a case brought by a young woman who said the platforms’ design had addicted her as a child; Meta said it would appeal. Earlier this month a New Mexico judge ordered the company to contribute $567 million to an abatement fund in a public nuisance case centred on child safety.

The broader question the trial was never able to answer — whether a court can establish, as a matter of proof, that a feed design causes harm to a particular child — remains open. Settling before Zuckerberg testified means it stays that way for now.

Sources: CNN; CNBC; NBC News; TIME; MPR News; Al Jazeera; statements from Meta and the California Attorney General.