Meta’s Settlement: A Closer Look
“Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies but let wasps and hornets break through.” This quote by Jonathan Swift highlights an undeniable truth – the $17.6 billion settlement Meta reached last week with 47 states and various U.S. territories may seem like a significant acknowledgment of the harmful effects of its addictive social media algorithms on youth. However, a closer examination reveals a lot that remains unaddressed.
The settlement will be distributed over ten years and is partly dependent on competitors like Facebook and Instagram making similar changes. Surprisingly, it seems that Meta will actually spend more this year on legal fees than it will disburse to the states.
Investigative journalist Peter Schweizer remarked, “This is a massively good deal for Meta in terms of what they’ll actually pay, and the fact that they didn’t admit to anything. Why would these state attorneys general, supposedly ardent protectors of their citizens, agree to such a poor deal?” He expressed these thoughts in a recent episode of The Drill Down.
Co-host Eric Eggers pointed out, “Many people are comparing this to the tobacco companies’ settlement from thirty years ago. But it’s worth noting that the tobacco settlement was for $200 billion back in 1998, whereas Meta is essentially getting a slap on the wrist, even if its rivals adopt the same safety measures for children.”
Eggers further explained, “The fluctuating settlement amount indicates that Meta’s potential payout increases if competitors—like YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat—also implement the same changes. So, Meta is willing to pay up to an additional five billion dollars if their rivals’ products become less appealing to children. That’s the crux of the settlement.”
Yet, the path isn’t entirely clear for Meta. Florida is pursuing a separate lawsuit against the company, which is currently in trial, and many observers believe it’s not going well for Meta. Florida’s Attorney General, James Uthmeier, dismissed the settlement as insufficient, stating, “That’s peanuts. That’s not sending a message.” Uthmeier indicated to CNBC, “We’ll take this to court; we’re committed to fighting for our children in Florida. We aren’t going to just back down.”
“They need to be held accountable for their products,” Schweizer concurred, adding that “they’re creating a product that is highly addictive.”
As part of the settlement concessions, Meta agreed to implement opt-out options for teenage feeds on Facebook and Instagram.
Schweizer pondered about this opt-in, opt-out feature: “I wonder how easy it will be for kids to bypass the system that Meta will set up. From a business perspective, Meta has no motivation to reduce the addiction; in fact, they benefit from it because their revenue relies on the time users spend on their platform.”
This raises the question of why all these states—led by both Republicans and Democrats—would support the settlement. Perhaps the perspective of journalist H.L. Mencken provides some insight: “Lawyers’ relationship to justice is the same as a whore’s relationship to love.”
The discussion noted that Meta is set to invest around $65 million in political contributions aimed at promoting its interests, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI).
Schweizer highlighted that “these companies’ algorithms, integral to their engagement strategies, are powered and refined by AI. This is directly tied to the addiction issue.”
Eggers added that a recent article indicated that major AI firms behind these algorithms are funding the attorneys general that are investigating them. “That’s an interesting coincidence,” Schweizer remarked.
“There’s also the Republican Attorney General Association (RAGA) and the Democrat Attorney General Association (DAGA), both of which fund these election campaigns,” Eggers explained. “The leading AI companies—OpenAI, Google, Meta, and Amazon—have collectively contributed over $2 million to attorney general campaigns since last year.”
“This isn’t a settled matter, but if the recent agreement is any indication, it seems unlikely that these tech companies will face serious consequences,” Schweizer concluded. “It’s appearing more like a small tax to keep operating.”
