Meta’s decision to limit teenagers’ social media use in the United States highlights that platforms possess the capability to better safeguard young users, Australian officials noted on Thursday. This comes as Australia continues to face challenges enforcing similar restrictions domestically.
In a significant development, Meta agreed to a settlement potentially reaching $18 billion with nearly all US states. The agreement addresses allegations that the company’s platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, were designed to addict teenagers, fueling a global movement by governments to protect children and reduce social media addiction.
Worldwide, authorities are intensifying efforts to restrict children’s exposure to harmful online content. Australia, for instance, implemented a pioneering ban late last year prohibiting social media use for children under 16. Australian Communications Minister Anika Wells emphasized that social media companies have the necessary tools to shield young users from addictive features but have opted not to deploy them.
Under the US settlement, Meta will pay up to $18 billion over ten years and impose new limits on how teenagers access Facebook and Instagram. These changes include a default two-hour daily limit on app usage for users under 18. Despite agreeing to the settlement, Meta denied any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, South Korea’s media regulator suggested that some of Meta’s protective measures should be extended globally rather than confined to select markets. Malaysia, which already restricts social media accounts to users aged 16 and above, welcomed the settlement as a sign that platforms must be held accountable for their content and user impact.
The European Commission is awaiting Meta’s proposals to curb addictive design elements on its social networks. Earlier this year, the Commission found preliminary evidence that Meta violated the Digital Services Act (DSA). In July, it recommended that Facebook and Instagram disable autoplay and infinite scrolling by default, introduce screen-time breaks, and modify recommendation algorithms to reduce user engagement incentives—measures that exceed those in the US settlement.
In April, the Commission criticized Meta for failing to prevent children under 13 from creating or maintaining accounts. The US settlement may strengthen calls for stricter age-verification processes, making it harder for Meta to argue such measures are impractical. Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier stated, “We have been very clear … we expect proper screen time management, we expect proper parental control on these platforms. Meta knows … the ball is in Meta’s court.”
However, enforcement of these restrictions in Australia has been inconsistent. Early reports indicate that weak age-verification systems have undermined the law, with studies—including those by Australia’s internet regulator—showing that 80 percent of minors remained active on social media months after the ban took effect in December. This has led lawmakers to double the maximum fines and enhance regulatory authority.
Across Asia, countries such as China, South Korea, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines are also pursuing stronger oversight of social media platforms. Their efforts include blocking scams and protecting children from online harm. Philippine Department of Information and Communications Technology Secretary Henry Aguda expressed hope that the Meta settlement would facilitate discussions with the company, scheduled for Thursday, addressing online sexual abuse, exploitation of children, and financial scams targeting Filipinos.
In Australia, the class-action law firm Shine Lawyers is exploring the possibility of a similar legal case. They are in talks with Mark Lanier, a lawyer involved in the California lawsuit against Meta. Craig Allsopp, head of class actions at Shine Lawyers, remarked, “For years, families have been asking whether enough has been done to protect children from platform features designed to maximise engagement. We are now examining whether similar legal issues arise in Australia, including whether Australian children and families may have claims connected to the design, operation and promotion of social media platforms. If Australian families have been affected, they deserve answers.”
