Former Meta Safety Employee Says Settlement with States Doesn't Go Far Enough to Protect Children

Meta’s multibillion-dollar settlement with US states over alleged harm to children on social media does not go far enough, a former member of its safety team has told Politico.

The agreement, announced last week during a federal trial, resolved claims by California and 28 other states that Meta deliberately designed its Facebook and Instagram platforms to keep minors hooked and misled the public about the risks. It provides for payments of up to $17 billion and imposes new restrictions on users under 18.

Arturo Bejar, a former Facebook safety employee and key witness in the case, said in an interview published on Monday that he had spoken to around 40 bereaved parents and that social media had played a meaningful role in their children’s deaths. “These changes would not have saved one of those lives if they had been in place,” he said.

“Meta gets to define harm as whatever they define it as, and they get to put it in terms of the things they’re already doing,” Bejar said.

Under the settlement, minors will face a default two-hour daily limit across Facebook and Instagram and be blocked from most use between midnight and 6 a.m. unless a parent overrides the restrictions. Notifications will be muted during school hours and like counts hidden. Filters simulating cosmetic surgery or extreme makeup will be banned, while young users will be able to choose a feed that is not personalized. An independent auditor will monitor Meta’s compliance.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said further action was needed, but added that the agreement “provides important protections” for children and teenagers.

Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the settlement resulted from years of discussions with state attorneys general. The company has denied wrongdoing throughout the case, insisting that it has worked to protect children and teenagers online. It has also rejected the idea that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately made addictive, arguing that “social media addiction” is not even a recognized psychiatric condition.